MeIRL
-
Posts
44 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by MeIRL
-
-
MeIRL, you have quite a contentious spirit.
But I'm sure you mean no criticism in saying that.
Reminds me of our favorite high-school backhanded compliment: "For a fat girl, you don't sweat much."
No need to take disagreement so personally.Really? Even when it is intended personally?
Know that in the future, when someone compliments you, summarizes their own views and thanks you for your input, they are saying, "I think I understand your position, I think you understand my position, and anything we say further will merely devolve into hair-splitting, contention and fruitless debate."Or perhaps, "I have no good responses to your points, so therefore I'm going to cut bait."
Please read more carefully and more slowly and more critically.I have indeed read slowly, carefully, and critically.
I did not condemn your media choices at all.What I condemned was your portrayal of several talks whose intent was focused on sexual immorality and pornography and nudity.
This is false. I did not "portray" the talks in any way. Rather, I quoted from them and provided the links so others could read them in their entirety. I merely pointed out that President Benson had, in actual point of fact, said "don't see R-rated movies".
In other words: I stated a truth, and you objected to that truth, claiming I was misrepresenting it (which I very clearly was not). You then claimed:
Does he give any indication that he is focusing on depictions of realistic war violence, or depictions of Holocaust cruelty, or portrayals of the brutal torture inflicted upon our beloved Savior?
If you say yes, you are injecting your own opinions into the words of our General Authorities. Enough said.
Very obviously, you are indeed criticizing my media choices. There can be no other interpretation of your words. My choice in media, reflecting my interpretation of prophetic counsel, constitutes (in your words) "injecting [my] own opinions into the words of our General Authorities."
(You also went on to offer supposed "mutually exclusive possibilities". I am still waiting for you to explain how the possibilities offered are in any way "mutually exclusive", or for that matter why they might be the only two possibilities.)
Your reduction of the entire talk to one slogan, "Don't watch R-rated movies," was to me inaccurate.This is a false characterization. I did nothing of the sort. I merely pointed out that our leaders had in very fact told us not to watch R-rated movies. Period. I made no other claims and imposed no other interpretations or restrictions on their words.
It is clear to me from these two examples that you mean something entirely different from me when you use the terms "letter of the law" and "spirit of the law".This is possible. As far as I can tell, this language originates from Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 3:6-8.
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
In context, it's obvious that Paul is speaking of Christ's law superseding the law of Moses.
Perhaps you can explain where your apparently unique interpretation comes from.
And if watching an R-rated movie invites the Spirit, enlivens my sensitivities and brings me closer to my Father, I cannot see any possible reason not to watch it. That is my personal standard. You needn't share it.Agreed. If obeying prophetic counsel does not improve your spiritual condition, then you need not obey prophetic counsel.
But I don't believe that.
I would refer you to my first post in this thread with the idea of "one size does not fit all" and "everyone is different" if you find my position puzzling.Interesting, then, that the scriptures uniformly urge obedience to God and subjugation of one's own will to his, and rarely or never speak of how "one size does not fit all" and "everyone is different" with regard to the commandments and obedience to the words of the prophets. What do you make of that?
If you are referring to my example of traffic lights and the letter/spirit of the law, you clearly misconstrued my point. I was not drawing a direct parallel between traffic lights and counsel to avoid R-rated movies. I was illustrating how the letter and spirit of the laws can contradict each other using an everyday example that I hoped would be common enough to be comprehensible.Taking it as you intended, then, it is a faulty example. No court in the US would uphold a conviction in the circumstance you cite. In short, it's not illegal in that case.
The letter of the "law" as you understand it: Don't watch any R-rated movies, ever, period.False. That is merely a part, like "don't smoke tobacco" is part of the Word of Wisdom.
The purpose or spirit of that "law" as I understand it: to avoid satanically-influenced media that encourages immorality, that exposes us to pornography, and that ridicules the sacred.In which case, following what you have identified as "the letter of the law" does the spirit no harm at all.
So if a person thinks I should avoid watching that movie just to conform to the letter of the law like some shallow Pharisee incapable of complex thought and personal decision makingPlease note the overt hatefulness and judgmentalism displayed in the bolded portion above.
In fact, those who think that we ought to obey the prophets in the counsel about avoiding R-rated movies are not all "like some shallow Pharisee incapable of complex thought and personal decision making", as you suggest.
Will I criticize you for avoiding media I find edifying?Of course not.
And yet, you did.
Will I rebut your reasons for condemning media I find edifying?Certainly.
I provided a quotation, backed up by reference, of a prophet explicitly saying, "Don't see R-rated movies". You may hand-wave away any meaning you wish to, but all your dancing does not change the plain meaning of words.
Again, wrong. I was criticizing your reduction of substantive talks to a single-sentence summary that--to me--missed the mark.But of course, this is false. I did no such thing.
Please slow down and take five minutes to make sure you really understand what I've said before you slap an insulted response to these forums.You perhaps ought to follow your own advice, given how badly you have missed what I have been saying (and quite clearly, I thought).
-
I totally agree that men will not be punished for Adams sin, though we reap all the benefits of his sin (sarcasm).
Since the result of Adam's sin was the Fall, and since the Fall was necessary to bring about the Atonement and our possibility to return to the heavenly Father, we do indeed reap all the benefits of Adam's sin (no sarcasm).
But where you say
through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel
We say
through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by faith alone in Jesus Christ.
There is no difference. Two ways of saying the same thing.
How do we have faith in Christ? By keeping his commandments, the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. Claiming to have faith without the works that inevitably go with faith is meaningless (or, in Paul's word, dead).
Matthew 7:21-23
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
-
You will never be guilty of sin by a literal and narrow interpretation of the prophet's counsel.
As you, apparently, will never be guilty of actually responding to the points I made.
I certainly won't criticize you for your personal standard of media consumption.
Let's test this claim, based on your previous statements:
- Too bad you only decided to apply the bold typeface to the phrase "Don't see R-rated movies" because what came after expanded on and clarified what he meant when he said "Don't see R-rated movies."
- Again, too bad you cherry-picked this quote out of context of the entire talk.
- If you say yes, you are injecting your own opinions into the words of our General Authorities.
- Anyone can pick one sentence or paragraph from a larger body of work and use it as evidence to support any number of conclusions.
- Truth twisters draw conclusions and then gather supporting evidence. [This was clearly targeted at me.]
Huh.
No, I'd have to say I don't believe your claim about not criticizing me for my personal standard of media consumption.
For myself, I find the interaction between the letter and the spirit of the law a nuanced and often surprising phenomenon.
I have noticed that when someone wants to do something we have been counseled against, they very often will invoke the "letter of the law" vs. the "spirit of the law" argument. This is a non-starter, of course, but people continue to try it. The fact is, the spirit of the law is almost always far more constraining than the mere letter:
- The letter of the law says to love your family and friends; the spirit says to love your enemies and do good to them that hate you.
- The letter of the law says not to smoke or drink alcohol; the spirit of the law says to avoid anything and everything that makes you unhealthy or that is addictive.
- The letter of the law says to give your wife a bill of divorcement if you don't want her any more; the spirit of the law says not to divorce her.
- The letter of the law says to give to the poor and help the less fortunate; the spirit of the law says to dedicate your life and your means to helping those around you.
So when you suggest that the letter of the law is to avoid R-rated movies but the spirit is to go ahead and watch R-rated movies as long as they aren't sexual, I think that is a ludicrous falsehood. If the letter of the law is not to watch R-rated movies, the spirit of the law is to avoid any and all "entertainment" that offends the spirit, that deadens our sensitivities, and that does not bring us closer to God.
If such avoidance means we might occasionally miss out on the decent and even edifying movie, what of it? I don't think Nephi was greatly hampered in his search for eternal life by not having access to motion picture technology.
When obeying the exact and literal guidelines of a law or commandment contradicts or undermines the purpose for which the law or commandment was given, choosing to govern ourselves by the spirit of the law can be a wise choice.
Refusing to watch an R-rated movie, even a really really really really really good one, will never undermine the goal of achieving eternal life. That is absurd.
Example? Traffic lights say that you cannot pass them if the light is red: you must stop your vehicle. That is the letter of the law: stop when red, go when green. The purpose of traffic lights is to prevent accidents and by extension, preserve health and life. Suppose a man is rushing his wife to the hospital. She is in labor. There are complications. Both she and the infant can die if medical help arrives too late.
The man approaches a traffic light that is glowing red. It is 2 AM. He can see in all directions for at least a mile. There are no other cars approaching. Assume that the woman and baby will die if he stops his car at the stop light: the delay will seal her and her baby's fate. Now the husband can do one of two things:
1. Stop at the red traffic light before continuing and cause his wife and baby to die.
2. Pass the traffic light at full speed in order to save his wife and baby.
Lovely. Now please provide an example where avoiding an R-rated movie will immediately result in the physical or spiritual death of a person.
Nonsense.
I won't try to convince you of what the spirit of the "Don't watch R-rated movies" counsel is because it is clear we will disagree. I did want to point out, however, that life is not always black and white and choosing the right is not always as easy as merely checking off a box on a list of commandments and resting assured that we are blameless because we have never done something contrary to what is explicitly enjoined or forbidden as the case may be.
Nor did I ever claim such a foolish thing.
But you were doing much more than merely pointing out the above obviousness. You were, in point of fact, criticizing me and others who avoid R-rated movies and who claim (correctly and truthfully) that the prophets have counseled us to do so.
Thanks for the dialogue. I enjoyed it almost as much as I did "The Passion of The Christ".
What a pity to eschew prophetic counsel and the chance to demonstrate to God and to oneself that one will seek to be obedient in all things, just to see a movie that one enjoyed only slightly more than a short discussion-list conversation.
-
"I believe that we are born sinners, inherited by our earthly father, and ultimately from Adam."
Babies + Sinful Nature x Unaccountability = No Hell
No contradiction. Hope that helps clear up things.
Not in the least. You want babies to be "born sinners" yet not be sinful. Nonsense.
-
Too bad you only decided to apply the bold typeface to the phrase "Don't see R-rated movies" because what came after expanded on and clarified what he meant when he said "Don't see R-rated movies." It is clear Pres. Benson had immorality, pornography and other "lusts of our eyes" in mind with his condemnation of R-rated movies.
Your remarkable mind-reading abilities notwithstanding, my point remains. We have indeed been counseled against watching R-rated movies. This was done by the senior apostle (a.k.a. the president of the Church, a.k.a. the Prophet) during General Conference. Spin it however you wish; those facts remain.
Again, too bad you cherry-picked this quote out of context of the entire talk.It's only "too bad" because it doesn't support the conclusion you wish to reach.
Elder Peterson began his talk by saying he wanted to focus on immoral entertainment (movies, CDs, et al).Immorality consists of more than merely sexual sin.
So what does Elder Peterson have in mind later in his talk when he says:"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."
Does he give any indication that he is focusing on depictions of realistic war violence, or depictions of Holocaust cruelty, or portrayals of the brutal torture inflicted upon our beloved Savior?
He gives indication that he is talking about R-rated movies. It's really not that hard.
If you say yes, you are injecting your own opinions into the words of our General Authorities. Enough said.Not quite enough said. Consider:
The prophets say, "Avoid R-rated movies and other immoral and sexually suggestive entertainment."
Here are two responses:
- MeIrl claims: "The prophets told us to avoid R-rated movies."
- CrimsonKairos claims: "The prophets didn't really mean ALL R-rated movies, only the sexually suggestive ones. There is nothing wrong with watching an R-rated movie that depicts people getting blown to pieces."
Given that neither of the two completely represents what the prophets taught, which of the two more accurately represents what they did say? Which of the two actually injects his own opinions into the words of our General Authorities?
Enough said, finally.
One last question: Do you think satanic influences were behind the production and distribution of "The Passion of the Christ?" Remember what Christ said about a house divided against itself? Something to think about, and yet it was an R-rated movie.I have no idea whether it was Satanically inspired or produced. I did not watch it, nor did anyone in my household.
So we come to these mutually exclusive possibilities, either:1. All R-rated movies--regardless of content--are satanic and make those who view them unclean.
Or...
2. All movies that have immoral, suggestive, pornographic or lewd content--regardless of their rating--make those who view them unclean.
Do you know what "mutually exclusive" means? I suspect you do not, because the choices you offered above are in no possible sense "mutually exclusive".
I think it is the latter conclusion the apostles and seventies would have us come to after reading their counsel, as the entirety of their talks make clear through context and clarification.Not everyone is as gifted as you are in mind-reading.
Anyone can pick one sentence or paragraph from a larger body of work and use it as evidence to support any number of conclusions.When the sentence is, "Don't watch R-rated movies" and the conclusion is, "We should not watch R-rated movies", it's really not that hard of a connection to make.
Truth seekers examine ALL the evidence and then draw conclusions.Truth twisters draw conclusions and then gather supporting evidence.
Well put. If a prophet says "Don't watch R-rated movies" and someone says, "What he REALLY meant was not to watch R-rated movies that are sexually suggestive, but other kinds of R-rated movies are fine and dandy," I think we can be confident that that person is a truth twister.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.Agreed.
-
On one of the previous pages, we all agreed that infants, newborns, toddlers, mentally retarded people are not accountable. Hope that makes you feel better. :)
This contradicts your assertion that "I believe that we are born sinners, inherited by our earthly father, and ultimately from Adam." Infants and the mentally retarded are also children of Adam.
-
I believe that we are born sinners, inherited by our earthly father, and ultimately from Adam.
So the infant who dies is condemned to eternal hell.
Nice.
-
I think the best thing to do is to be direct, forceful, and even blunt. I envision a scenario like this:
"Look, Frank, you've been hounding us for too long. You're a deadbeat! Get OUT! Right now! And here, take your billy club, your brass knuckles, your sawed-off shotgun, and your SKS rifle with the loaded 30-round magazine and the illegal fully automatic modification to the firing mechanism! And don't come back, or we might have to get rough with you."
The final threat might seem a bit over the top, but trust me, such people need a firm guiding hand.
-
Thanks Pam, Im glad my frail communication skills somewhat made the point and you understood it. Unique love did not mean more love. Just like a love between Mother daughter is unique that I will never experience but it is very strong and very unique.
You wrote:
"I have a special unique love for my daughters as opposed to my son."
May we also therefore assume that you have a "special, unique" love for your son as opposed to your daughters?
-
A global flood is a doctrinal issue. The plain reading of the scriptures render that it was a global flood,
Not so. A "plain reading" of the scripture, not imposing anachronistic cosmologies on the words, leaves no room for a "global" flood.
and that has been the prevailing understanding throughout history.
I would love to see your evidence that the ancient Hebrews believed in a spherical earth and understood these verses as you claim.
Just like the continents being divided asunder during the days of Peleg, a global flood had been consistently taught in the Church and is supported by the plain reading of the verses in question.
Again, this is false. Saying "the earth was divided in Peleg's days" is not remotely the same as saying "continental drift on the earth's crust all took place during the lifetime of an individual named Peleg."
The earth was covered and except for those who were saved by God, "all flesh" was destroyed upon the face of the earth exactly as the scriptures say. That is the plain reading.
Then you are conveniently ignoring other scriptures that speak of "all the earth" without literally meaning "all the earth". Or do you believe that Caesar Augustus set out to tax the Nephites?
It is nice because it shows all the scripture references involved. For example, a belief that the entire earth was covered in water is supported by the fact that the scriptures consider it to have been the "baptism" of the earth (1 Pet. 3: 20-21). In the true Church of Jesus Christ, baptism is done by "complete" immersion; so, it follows that if the flood was a "baptism" then the entire earth must have been immersed.
Why? Is the earth a human soul, a child of God in a literal sense? If not, please demonstrate the LDS doctrine teaching that immersion baptism is a saving ordinance for any creature other than a human soul.
It is the currently established, consistenly taught, doctrine of this Church that there was a global flood. That's what the scriptures say happened.
False. It is what you think happened. Those two things are not the same.
In the very least, all us uneducated members of the Church are quite justified in believing such drivel. I mean if the Church believes it enough to publish it, despite the current scientific understanding, why can't we believe it?
Someone said you couldn't believe it?
Please render the citation from this thread showing where someone -- anyone -- claimed that you couldn't, or shouldn't, believe as you do. I think you will find it nonexistent.
Many of us believe God is capable of dividing and flooding, and turning mountains into valleys, resurrecting the dead, and many such things to the astonishment of the scientific community.
And many of us further believe that God doesn't intentionally mislead us or put false records lying around to deceive us. The geological record is unmistakably clear.
I am reminded of one more scripture.
When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. (2 Ne. 9:28)
Say, that reminds me of a scripture, too:
Regards,
MeIRL
-
With God all things are possible comes to mind. This reminds me of the abilty we have to forgive and 100% forget.
The fact that God can regrow hands doesn't mean that he will. The statement with which you disagreed -- "We counsel you, young men, not to pollute your minds with such degrading matter, for the mind through which this filth passes is never the same afterwards" -- is nevertheless true.
Frankly, I am not completely convinced that God can override a choice that we, exercising our agency, have made. If we choose to allow pornography to reshape our minds, how can a just God simply undo that, even if we ask him to? No, this is not at all obvious to me. It seems rather that if we choose to allow such filth into our minds, it must be our own choice, exercised through our lifetime, that finally rids us of that deformity. Perhaps Christ's atoning blood does enter into the equation -- indeed, it must -- but not just by saying, "Okay, now that I've repented, it's exactly as if I had never engaged in pornographic exploration!" I think the original quote is exactly right.
-
In that talk there where it says, "We counsel you, young men, not to pollute your minds with such degrading matter, for the mind through which this filth passes is never the same afterwards.", I have a hard time agreeing with. The part that says never be the same afterwords sounds highly exagerated. Should finish a statement like that with "unless repented of".
If you cut off your friends hand, is there any way you can possibly repent of that heinous act?
Yes.
Will your friend ever be the same, even if you repent?
No.
You can repent of indulging in pornography, but don't pretend that you can somehow remain untouched by it. It changes the very biochemistry of your brain. Complete, sincere repentance can remove the stain, but don't count on it to remove the effects of the evil you do to yourself. Some scars stay with you your whole life through, even if you repent.
-
MeIRL....you make me laugh.....are you bored or just obnoxious?
Do you really believe that personal insults are warranted?
You made a statement. I questioned your statement. I marshalled evidence to buttress my claim. You are refusing to answer.
The fact is that all of us have been present in classes like yours, where people who hold a minority or otherwise unpopular opinion keep their mouths shut. Many of us have been that person. If your opinion is that plural marriage should be reinstituted, then you are right to keep your mouth firmly shut. But if your opinion is that evolution occurs in human beings or that the flood of Noah did not literally cover the face of the globe, why should your opinion be shouted down?
More to the point, why are such nondoctrinal elements being discussed in class at all?
Feel free to let fly with some more personal insults, bytor. If that's how you run your class, it's no wonder you don't get a lot of dissenting opinions from your own.
-
Actually, I didn't bring it up....a class member did.Is that in the lesson manual? Because I'm pretty sure that bringing up contentious and tangential points of doctrine is not what gospel doctrine class is intended for.
Really? Interesting, then, that you said:
I opened the door to discussion about a local flood vs. a global one or an allegorical story, etc.
Sounded to me like you were taking responsibility (perhaps credit) for allowing the discussion, if not for actually originating it.
I am pretty sure that YOU weren't there to know whether it was contentious or not.
But you don't really know, do you?
But no, I was not there. I was basing my comments on what you wrote.
Maybe or maybe they enjoyed the discussion.Maybe the non-global-flood believers in your enthusiastically literalistic class were simply too intimidated to voice an honest view -- or maybe they just had the good sense not to invite disunity. Are you happy to have been the instigator of such potential intimidation and/or disunity?
Did the non-global-flood-believers tell you that? Hmmm. I suspect not, given that you said:
Nothing doing....my class was firmly in the literal camp.
Based on your statement, it is clear that if there were any people who disbelieved the "global flood" theory, they didn't make their opinions known. If they had, you would not likely have been so firm in your pronouncement of your class's supposedly unanimous opinion.
Intimidation? Disunity? Not in my class...smarty britches.
And you know this -- how? By how freely those who don't believe non-doctrinal dogma speak right up and disagree with the global flood believers?
No.....but Erik seems to exercise some courtesy...unlike your condescending post that really has nothing to do with what I was asking Rameumpton.Edit: Ironically, I note that ErikJohnson thinks contention is wonderful and Godly. Do you agree with him?
Condescending? How so?
To quote the inimitable Inigo Montoya: I do not think that word means what you think it means.
So, why don't YOU step off......and stop trying to cause contention.
I am trying to do no such thing. But this is a discussion list, with much different rules and expectations than a Sunday School gospel doctrine class.
-
I taught this lesson on Sunday and I opened the door to discussion about a local flood vs. a global one or an allegorical story, etc. Nothing doing....my class was firmly in the literal camp.
Is that in the lesson manual? Because I'm pretty sure that bringing up contentious and tangential points of doctrine is not what gospel doctrine class is intended for.
Maybe the non-global-flood believers in your enthusiastically literalistic class were simply too intimidated to voice an honest view -- or maybe they just had the good sense not to invite disunity. Are you happy to have been the instigator of such potential intimidation and/or disunity?
Edit: Ironically, I note that ErikJohnson thinks contention is wonderful and Godly. Do you agree with him?
-
How delightful... you have devoted a full 20% of all your posts to criticizing me. Oh happy day.From what I have read of your posts, Snow, you would appear to be describing yourself.
Glad I could make your day.
If you believe my post constitutes criticism, then you are admitting your own post to be just that. In that case, I'm not sure I understand what you're whining about. I have only posted here a very short time, but I have been reading this group for over a year and have read a lot of your posts. I speak as I find.
Here's the deal. The poster has already decided that Tiger Woods, for example, is not actually sorry for his errors despite what he says. I'd wager, because it is true, that the factor has not spoken to Woods once about the issue, is not privy to a single private part of Wood's brain or conscious. The poster's absurd point says nothing about Tiger and says everything about the poster.
I don't disagree.
-
So, since you're LDS, those quotes from the D&C and the Old Testament manual aren't evidence?
Or, should I say, "enough" evidence?
Correct.
-
Justice: I am.
-
I accidently found this ex-GA. I wonder why he's excommuicated? Is this because that he disagreed with presidency or because he's caught by sex abuse problem?
It looks no concoindence for me that he's excommunicated after the accident happened. More information about it?
Thanks
Brother Lee was excommunicated for apostasy. The Church didn't specify any other reasons, though some of Brother Lee's statements and unsubstantiated gossip suggest that his other activities were not entirely unknown to the Brethren and may have had some impact in his excommunication. But we don't know. Maybe Brother Lee will yet repent and return to Christ's fold. We can pray for him, right along with his victims and any others negatively affected by his actions (and teachings).
-
I'm just saying, those who want to believe in a physical separation of the continents during the days of Peleg seem to be in good company.
In "good company" with fellow continental-redistribution believers who added non-canonical footnoting to the scriptures, perhaps. They certainly are not in company with any reputable geologist, archaeologist, or anthropologist. The physical evidence for continental drift having taken place a very long time before any human beings ever walked the earth is overwhelming.
Of course, you can say we're just misinterpreting the evidence, as the Roman church told Galileo. Or you can insist, as do many Evangelicals, that God simply created things to look like they do. In which case, we might as well believe the Earth came into existence 45 seconds ago, with all our "experiences" and "memories" just programmed into place at that time. Whatever.
-
Oh for heaven's sakes...I'm thinking HEP said that with tongue in cheek, waiting for some of these reactions.
You mistake my meaning. I was joking just exactly as much as HEP was. I was serious only to the extent that he was serious.
-
You live in a very literal world don't you MeIRL? Metaphor has no meaning for you.
What does "Metaphor" mean?
well, lets just take a look at how that's worked out for "parents like you" in the past shall we?
1. Sex education classes with highly vulgar and explicit images
2. Contraceptives available on campus
3. No prayer in schools unless student initiated and purely student participated
(redundant to keep listing)
WHOOOOOSH!
That was the sound of your example sailing far over my head.
IF R rated movies are shown the ISD would require a consent form to be signed... IF your kid actually viewed the movie its because YOU'd have given consent.... there goes your law suit.
Perhaps you misread my original comment. Let me reiterate.
If you showed my high-school child an R-rated movie without my consent, I would actively seek to have you fired.
Whats also really sad is that you think you know better than all the other parent, the teacher, the principal, and even the school board. Because if they all decided that the teacher shouldnt lose their job over the issue then you'd try to take the matter to a court of law.
Yeah, I'm funny like that. The combined authority and beliefs of the principal, the superintendent, and the National Education Association still isn't enough to convince me that a bad teacher should stay. I daresay that even if the Sierra Club and the American Communist Party joined in, I still wouldn't change my opinion.
Any chance you're the granddaughter of the Mc Donnalds hot coffie lady?
You know, I have never really considered whether I am the granddaughter of that woman. I can't say for sure. I suppose I should ask my mother. Or my wife.
-
I'd like to call for sources here, because I've heard very little counsel on the subject of the ratings of movies.The same can be said of R-rated movies. The First Presidency and General Authorities have consistently counseled against watching them, and there has not been any indication of that counsel changing.
Explicit, blunt instruction given by Ezra Taft Benson, the prophet and Church president at the time:
Here is another reference:
-
Would I show Saving Private Ryan in a high school history class? ABSOLUTLEY!!
Would I show the unedited theater version of The Goonies to the same aged kids? No way!
If you showed my high-school child an R-rated movie without my consent, I would actively seek to have you fired. I would complain to the principal and the school board and would hire a lawyer, threatening to sue unless you were terminated.
So if you really are a high school teacher, remember there may be parents like me among the guardians of your students.
"R" rated movies
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted · Edited by MeIRL
At least you have quit trying to veil your insults. I prefer honest hatred to lying brotherhood. At least that way I know my enemies.
Strange how, after openly and directly insulting me, you told me I need not take things so personally. More hypocrisy? Or did you have something else in mind?