The Folk Prophet

It is not the homosexual people I have a problem with in movies. (Which I hope would be obvious since they're...you know...computer generated cartoons in this case). It is the homosexuality itself on display. Then I think we disagree on what it means to glorify and celebrate something. First, to me, showing a super happy couple with a loving child is putting a lie to the reality of things, because I believe in the gospel principle that wickedness never was happiness. This I understand you will not agree with. Second, showing the lifestyle as a warm, wonderful, nurturing thing is, very much, glorifying and celebrating it, because what greater glory and celebration is there than the true love of family? We cannot agree or disagree to their other goodness or badness outside the homosexuality because we don't know. There's no reason to presume any person that I don't know is good or bad. But that's beyond the point. It is the homosexuality itself that is, by our view, bad and that we object to. Now before you tell me the following example is equating things to homosexuality I'm going to make it clear that I am not. It's an extreme example. It's like saying this guy murders bunnies -- but he's really nice and polite, serves in a soup kitchen for the poor, and gives money to charities. (Insert anything you consider bad in the place of bunny murder for the example). The bunny murder is still bad regardless of the other "good" the person might do/be. So how many things does any individual have to do that are considered "bad" before said people are "bad" anyhow? I mean it's not really a question worth answering, now, is it? But who do you consider "bad"? What act does someone need to engage in to be considered "bad" in your book? What if someone else doesn't consider that act bad? Does that render it not bad? Do you just capitulate to the lowest common denominator until there is no good or bad whatsoever? Ted Bundy was a really nice guy who worked for a suicide help line and was pursuing a law degree. (Note, once again, this is not "equating" homosexuality to serial murder. It's an example.) Can you defend this idea beyond just saying it? Because I'm pretty sure that, as for me and the homosexual people I know, I see a great deal more than just their sexual orientation. Which is irrelevant to whether I approve of homosexuality or their displaying it in any given circumstance. But even more importantly -- when there's an cartoon character created as an extra for the sole purpose of displaying a homosexual relationship dropping off a shared kid at a preschool, you really want us to believe that it's important to see more out of it...like their cartoon selves really have this actual life of supposed cartoon goodness that we're missing? Really?

Then that's a point worth making. A comment you apparently don't understand. It seems very likely that any future Disney/Pixar movie will move beyond the subtle and hidden to the open and obvious. They are constantly pushing the boundaries and constantly getting more and more acceptance and approval for doing so. That is what I mean by them not being a safe bet any more. Because if I haven't noticed the joke in the Cars sign, the word SEX in the dust, or the phallic symbol on the cover until they're explicitly pointed out to me by someone on the internet then I'm pretty sure my kids won't notice, understand, care, or be influenced in any way by them either. And in the case of the Cars sign, more importantly, I don't have a problem with a very mildly edgy joke and, as I said, might tell the same sort of joke with and around my family because IT'S A JOKE! Showing two mom's as normal and wholesome is not a joke. The meaning in that difference should be plain. Why? You think most people read all the signs in the Cars movies? I'd dare bet that 90% of people who know about any risque type things in Disney/Pixar animated kids' movies know of them because they came across some Youtube video telling them all about it. You keep saying "all" as if its myriads and myriads. I knew of like....3 prior to this Cars one. I'm sure I may have missed a few more too...but I'd seriously doubt you or anyone could come up with more than...say...10 total...and I'd guess that several of those aren't that big of a deal (like the cars one) and a few more are iffy as to whether they really are what people think they are (like the priest's supposed arousal in The Little Mermaid). Out of hundreds of movies that's not anything like you're suggesting. And I did say, "pretty" safe, not completely and perfectly safe. I would never let my children watch that, nor have I ever seen it, nor will I.

Kind of. I mean that's part of it. The other part of it, I believe, is whether there is any real value -- ever -- in movies? And, conversely, even with whatever minimal value one might find, is shielding children from immorality in movies, even to the extreme, really going to create resentment, ignorance, and fragility? And if so, what did people do before moving picture were invented? It's one thing for people to say some moment in a movie isn't harmful, and partaking of that entertainment is thereby a viable harmless option. It's another thing entirely when the reactions seem to be saying that those who decide it's not worth it are somehow doing something wrong. You know, the more I think about this, the more I think it's based on nothing but anecdote. I'm just not convinced it's true.

On a side note: Testimonies are very rarely actually lost. Faith is lost. Or, rather, faith is abandoned. If testimonies were actually lost (like somehow we had amnesia) then we'd hardly be accountable for that (unless the actions that caused amnesia was intentional (as is sometimes the case)). Also, maybe someone can correct me, but I don't believe there is any commandment to have a testimony anywhere. There is a commandment to believe. There is a commandment to have faith. And there are promises related to those choices. But losing a testimony (assuming one could) wouldn't damn us if we choose to continue exercising faith and belief. The primary spiritual experience I had whereby I can testify of the Savior, for example, is an actual experience that I had. It's not something I can actually forget. I can ignore it...put it aside, etc., and pretend like I don't remember it. But when I stand before my Savior at judgment day I will not be able to deny that experience any more than those who have had similar experiences will be able to deny theirs. And for ignoring it, I would be accountable. And...on top of that...it's interesting to consider your statement in terms of faith (assuming it read "Sin is the only reason why faith is lost"). That is truth like saying car crashes are the only reasons car accidents happen. Because not having faith is a sin.

I tend to agree with this. It's not merely the "exposure" that matters so much. The entertainment we intentionally consume is not merely exposure though.

I don't think I'm am. Now you're just shoveling the same crap another way. A) No they haven't. Sometimes there is some adult content hidden. It is far from "always" and B) "hidden" is pretty key here, don't you think? It's the subject at hand. Well, duh. Why would you presume that I'm okay with the "hidden" adult content once I'm made aware of it? And, again, what does that have to do with whether gay characters are appropriate in children's movies or not. This is hilarious. The kind of joke I'd make around my extremely conservative family. Apparently "worse" is, decidedly, subjective. Edit: I realize that in saying "why would you presume I'm okay with..." and then immediately state how I'm okay with a so-called "dirty" joke I kind of shoot myself in the foot. But I maintain -- "worse" is subjective. I'm not okay with some things. Okay with others. And none of that has anything to do with whether gay characters are appropriate in children shows.

Only if there aren't certain presumptions in place. The presumption missionaries (and we) should have is that this is Christ's church. It's not "a" church. It is His church. That is the understanding to which I refer which I think is perquisite to a baptism commitment. So what? Of course there is. The logical sequence is as follows: A spiritual witness of the truth of the Joseph Smith as a Prophet and The Book of Mormon as the word of God leads to the logical conclusion that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Christ's church. Which isn't really the point or what I said -- so maybe there's some misunderstanding here. I'm talking about our perspective as members of Christ's church and how we should approach committing others to baptism based upon their commitment to Christ and His church. That is, obviously, contingent on their actually believing that this is Christ's church.

Only if by "valid" you mean "idiotic". No. Because I don't believe for a second that you believe such nonsense either. You, like others, have a "gotchya" point to win an argument. But no one but an idiot would actually believe such a thing. So either you're an idiot, in which case explaining wouldn't do any good, or you have a "gotchya" point that you're using to grind an ax and support an agenda, in which case explaining isn't going to do any good. But even more importantly: it's entirely irrelevant. It's a total misdirect. Even if I conceded and absolutely agreed with the point and decided to never let my children watch Beauty and the Beast again, burning all copies of it I could get my hands on because of the "bestiality", it would have absolutely NOTHING to do with the appropriateness of putting "gay" stuff in children's shows or not. So even if you double down and demand that you really and truly believe Beauty and the Beast promotes romantic love and sex with animals it doesn't make any difference to the concern I and others have. And your (and other's) point isn't actually to get me to burn all copies and never watch it again, which would be the point if you actually believed such a moronic thing, but rather your intent (agenda) is to get people to admit that they shouldn't consider the gay stuff a big deal -- which demands that no one can find anything offensive unless they concede that what you say is offensive must be as well. Which is ridiculous. How can you possibly expect such a tactic to work? Have you ever seen anyone who finds the gay stuff offensive converted to thinking the gay stuff was not offensive by this approach? What did you expect of me? "Oh...bestiality. Oh my goodness. Well then...I guess the gay stuff's okay after all."

Haha. I saw this same argument being made on facebook back when this was being discussed. I laughed at its stupidity then too.

Is there a really a difference? Perhaps the perquisite knowledge needs to be understanding that there is no difference.

Part of what feels disingenuous in some of these discussions is that I'm fairly sure that what we believe IS clearly understood. But instead of just being, "it's good" vs. "it's bad" there's all this underhanded love your neighbor and sheltering children is a mistake nonsense.

I did not suggest, of course, that we do that. Though I'm not certain we have to be exposed to people to love them. I've never been exposed to, for example, Nazis or KKK member. I don't know any Muslims (Utah's moderately secluded in that regard). I've never met (that I know of) a serial killer. And I'm not sure I've ever met or interacted with a flat-earther. And yet I am commanded by God to love all these. Which he may have been...but that's not something that was actually implied. It was only inferred. The strong implication was that if we don't take our children to the kids' movies with LGBT couples in them then we're making a wrong choice. That is, after all, the whole question on the table.

Heaven forbid we engage in anything that makes us feel noble, moral or heroic.

When you use extreme terms such as "freak out" to describe the situation you've set it up so the communication is guaranteed to break down. You then spring board off the notion that it's a "freak out" and condemn such "freak out". That's called a straw man. I disagree with this and find it particularly closed minded. I'll agree the harm may not be extreme. But I do not agree (nor would I expect to with everyone) that there is no harm (or potential harm) whatsoever. I think you must not know what the word "equate" actually means. I did no such thing. If you do know what it is to actually equate, then you claiming I did proves that you're blinded by some bias. I'll explain: If there are things that we should keep our children away from, as you agreed to, then your argument that exposing them to certain things is de facto good for them isn't true across the board. That is the argument you made. So are you shifting the goal post a bit here now? Because you said if something is a reality of the world we live in, and Hollywood puts it on the screen, then if kids will learn of it one day anyhow, then not going to see a movie is "hiding from it", and not a good plan. Now you're agreeing that there are, indeed, things that we should "hide" our children from. The logic is simple. If there are things that we should hide our children from (using an extreme example to make a point, such as porn) then the question is simply where is the line drawn, which is the whole point of the question of the post. If I was committed to "hiding" from every little thing would I be asking the question and opening up the matter for debate? There's literally a question in the title of the post (despite the fact I didn't add a question mark). If you want to share your opinion that the time has not come, and that this is not the line, then that's great -- that's what the thread was started for. But when you try and suggest that the reason for doing so is because otherwise you're hiding your children from things, then the point breaks down very quickly with more extreme examples, as you have agreed -- because we should, indeed, hide our children from some things. There's that mistaken word again. And if I were saying in any regard that a depiction of two mothers dropping off a child at pre-school was just as bad as (equated to) viewing porn then you'd be right. That would be off base. I suspect you know fully well that no reasonable person would actually literally believe that the scene in Toy Story 4 "equates" to hardcore pornography. I am not of that mindset. That's your biased interpretation of things. My question is whether a kids' movie that briefly features a gay couple is cause enough to walk away from it. My inclination is that it is. My contention is that there is, indeed, harm. Additionally, my response to your philosophy is not that the harm of all things is equal. It is that if harm is a reason to avoid things, then a claim that "hiding" from something is bad must be contingent either upon that thing not being harmful or there being a greater good (which I believe, if you'd reflect on it a bit, is actually your position). Whereas I understand you do not believe there is harm in something like the scene in TS4, I would hope that you would be willing to admit that the question is over that (harmful or not) and not over whether hiding your children from certain things is a good idea or not. If you can see that point instead of exaggerating everything to "freak out" levels then maybe we can have a useful conversation. If you're just going to create this straw man that I'm some half Amish, half prepper, Bible-thumping, standing-on-the-corner-with-my-THE-WORLD-IS-ENDING-sign, neo-Nazi, KKK, crazy person then I'm not sure your responses really have much use.

I can respect this thinking. I have to wonder though, for myself, if the break ought to not happen sooner. A lot of people blew off the Beauty and the Beast "gay" scene as no big deal. Anecdotally, my sister told me that when they went to it (unawares) that afterward they did, indeed, get that awkward question moment from their exceptionally bright child. Of course these moments are, thus far, ambiguous enough that we can still lie our way out of them. ("They were just being silly." or "One of them was her aunt".) But we're lying, because we darned well know that isn't true.

A careful study of https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/john/17?lang=eng might help people understand this better. The phase that we should be "in the world but not of the world" is derived from John 17. That phrase is not actually in the scripture. What does it actually say? 6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. 9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. 11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be bone, as we are. 12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. 13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves. 14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. 18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. It's fairly plain that a good part of the meaning of "in the world" is literal. We are in the world because we are, literally, in the word. We're mortal, living on the earth. It has absolutely nothing to do with joining in with, as you say, Babylon. Additionally, we read in Romans 12:2 2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. And 1 John 2:15-16 15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the clove of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And James 4:4 4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. And then D&C 53:2 2 Behold, I, the Lord, who was crucified for the sins of the world, give unto you a commandment that you shall forsake the world. For @prisonchaplain's sake, this idea is echoed in 2 Corinthians 6:17 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you There are more scriptures like this. But I think these make the point.

Don't be ridiculous. It's like you don't actually care to communicate on this. The scriptures consistently warn us to be wary -- and often use wolves as an example of this. They also teach us to both fear God and to not be afraid. So clearly the idea has different meanings depending on its usage. Fear, by definition can mean alter somewhat in meaning. It doesn't have to mean trembling in your boots worried you're pending doom is immediately upon you. Merriam Webster, for example, offers 4 nouns definitions: 1 a: an unpleasant often strong emotion caused by anticipation or awareness of danger b (1): an instance of this emotion (2): a state marked by this emotion 2: anxious concern : SOLICITUDE 3: profound reverence and awe especially toward God 4: reason for alarm : DANGER Meaning #2 (Solicitude -- or in other words...be wary) is decidedly different from meaning #1. Some are reacting as if I meant #1. I did not. I meant #2.

@Godless's point was that we cannot love our neighbor without knowing them -- and logically therefore we must watch movies about them so we can know them. I would challenge that on every level as absolutely false. I must know Christ, and through the Holy Spirit I will thereby be guided. I do not need to get to know every type of individual that has ever lived through personal experience. Nor is is possible for me to do so. I don't need to really know anyone fully to love them. Nor do I need to fully understand them. Nor can I really know or really understand anyone. But Christ can and does. The idea that a movie will help me in this regard is so ridiculous it's almost laughable. Through the power of the atonement Christ is the only one who actually knows everyone -- and it is through Him that we may actually gain empathy on any level where we cannot otherwise. Loving someone is primarily about concern for their well being -- and that really means concerned for their eternal welfare -- it doesn't actually require understanding their individual tastes that differ entirely from yours. If someone just loves math and I, decidedly, do not, it doesn't mean I have to go watch a movie about people who do math to love them. If I love motorcycles and someone else does not they do not need to go watch a movie about motorcycles to love me. If someone is sexually attracted to others of their same sex I do not need to go watch a gay movie to love them. I cannot even begin to describe how obvious and silly that is. People who claim such things are lying to justify going to watch movies that they should not be watching. They want to watch those movies because they are pleasing to the carnal mind, not because they are pleasing to God. Getting to know someone so that you can influence them regarding their eternal welfare is, indeed, oft times important, but seeing a movie with a gay couple in it with my kids has no relationship to this at all.

Depends on the meaning of "fear".

I'm not assuming Erik Parry had that intention, of course. I think it's just something people say without giving it much thought. As if being a child of God is the only key to deserving love and respect. But...really? Ted Bundy? Jeffry Dahmer? Ed Gein? Stalin? Hitler? Satan? All children of God.

Interesting question sparked in my mind here. Let's say the individual is Hitler. I don't mean like Hitler. I mean, literally...Hitler. The man himself. Does everyone really deserve to be treated with love and respect? Of course that's a different question than whether we should treat everyone with love and respect or not.

Suddenly I feel like an idolator.

Vort bringin' it home!

Or this one:

To be fair, I doubt the scene in Toy Story 4 is a drive the Spirit away type thing. As much as the standard you're quoting here is "the standard" it's not the only standard by which wisdom should be exercised. Teaching/learning is a large part of why we're hear. And what we learn through any given medium can matter very much.