CrimsonKairos

The Church constantly updates, improves, clarifies and expands on the current curriculum materials, marts1. The only time the scriptures will be modified is if a new section is added to the D&C, or a First Presidency Proclamation/Declaration is added like the polygamy manifesto, etc (or if more bits of Joseph Smith's Inspired Translation of the Bible is included in footnotes or appendices, or even if the chapter and verse division is changed or updated). The scriptures, not the books written about the scriptures, are to be our primary source for doctrine (not policy or practice, that is different entirely and that's where living prophets really shine). You did read this quote by President Joseph F. Smith, right? "My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine." Now, do I think Gospel Principles the manual will contradict the scriptures? Probably not. However, that's not the issue. The issue is that the scriptures are to be our first, last and best source of doctrine by which we measure and discern every other man or woman's writings/teachings. Think about this: Gospel Principles is written about what's in the scriptures and is based on the scriptures, so how can it supersede the scriptures? The prophets are clear that the standard works, not Church curriculum books, General Conference addresses or independently published media are to be the measuring stick, the canon, that determines our doctrine. The word "canon" comes from Hebrew "qaneh" which means "reed" and they used reeds as rulers or measuring sticks. The standard works are our canon, measuring stick for doctrine.

You have the first two on the list in the incorrect order. It should be scriptures, then prophets doctrinal statements. See my explanation in this other thread.

There is also the concept of individual units of progression. By that I mean our world and the attendant spiritual beings that minister to it could be compared to a "ward" in the Church. Does the Bishop of one ward hold correlation meetings with leaders from other wards on a regular basis? No, each ward is separate with its own programs and leaders and there is no need to know what a ward halfway across the world is doing for mutual this week. Why would we need to know of the prophets, scriptures on and visitations of Christ to other worlds than our own? We have all we need for our salvation right here.

This link might help: Joseph Fielding McConkie Here are two very important quotes from it (it's a long page): "It makes no difference," stated President Joseph Fielding Smith, "what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine. "You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. "Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted" (Doctrines of Salvation, 3:203-4). And: "It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they [speak] and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator—please note that one exception—you may immediately say, `Well, that is his own idea.' And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard church works (I think that is why we call them `standard'—it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false, regardless of the position of the man who says it" ("Place of the Living Prophet, Seer and Revelator," 14). Thus the vital importance of becoming masters of the scriptures. How can you compare any man or woman's doctrine to the standard works if you don't know them? I think that in the Church--unfortunately--many buy and gobble up so many books written by scholars and leaders in the Church instead of focusing an equal amount of interest and attention on the scriptures themselves. It's not an "either-or" scenario, it's a "both-and" scenario. We would all do well to search the scriptures ourselves instead of relying on books written by Church leaders to constitute our scripture study based on verses they quote and comment on. Church leaders cannot possibly write enough books quoting enough scriptures to meet our scriptural needs. We should actively read and seek truth in the standard works on our own, and then perhaps turn to the counsel and opinions of inspired Church leaders for expansion and thought-provoking writing. God expects each of us to be responsible for our spiritual instruction and pursuit of personal revelation. The Church leaders are first and foremost to guide and preside over the Church, not teach seminary. One last quote: Elder Bruce R. McConkie said: "Those who preach by the power of the Holy Ghost use the scriptures as their basic source of knowledge and doctrine. They begin with what the Lord has before revealed to other inspired men. But it is the practice of the Lord to give added knowledge to those upon whose hearts the true meanings and intents of the scriptures have been impressed. Many great doctrinal revelations come to those who preach from the scriptures. When they are in tune with the Infinite, the Lord lets them know, first, the full and complete meaning of the scriptures they are expounding, and then he ofttimes expands their views so that new truths flood in upon them, and they learn added things that those who do not follow such a course can never know. Hence, as to `preaching the word,' the Lord commands his servants to go forth `saying none other things than that which the prophets and apostles have written, and that which is taught them by the Comforter through the prayer of faith.' (D&C 52:9.) In a living, growing, divine church, new truths will come from time to time and old truths will be applied with new vigor to new situations, all under the guidance of the Holy Spirit of God" (Promised Messiah, 515-16). How much of the scriptures do you or I read each day? Can we point to stories and verses in each of the standard works to establish doctrines and principles, or do we solely rely on quoting General Conference addresses? It is good to be able to do both, but we must start with the scriptures. Incidentally, General Conference addresses may reference scriptures or verses we are unfamiliar with, and this can be a great springboard to our own scripture study as we read the scriptures in question for ourselves.

What think you of the desert tradition of leaving raw meat in the sun to dry it up into jerky? Could not that be what the raw meat they were referring to was? Jerky such as that is uncooked.

As long as we remember that it is Anthropomorphic Global Warming that is causing the record-setting snow storms and cold weather right now. I hate it when it's so hot it's cold!

Last year, Brother Merrill who taught a Book of Mormon class at BYU told a story of demonic possession that was fairly intense. He knew the Seventy who was involved. Here is the nutshell version. - The Seventy (singular, as in, one person) flew in to Mission President's home for mission visit. - One of the mission AP's woke up the Seventy during the night. Said the other AP was possessed and the mission president and he had tried to cast it out and couldn't. - Seventy went upstairs, felt like his feet were lead, felt fear, then the scripture came to mind, "Perfect love casteth out all fear." - Upstairs, the Mission President, his wife and the AP were trying to hold the possessed AP down into a chair over which he was floating in the air. - Seventy went over, hugged the elder and said, "I love you. I love you!" And apparently that was enough to cause the evil spirit to leave. What's interesting is that the Mission President was most likely a very spiritual and worthy man, yet he couldn't cast this spirit out. It is still something I think about...priesthood authority and love combined = power.

One religion professor I know who teaches at BYU right now told me that for every $1.00 of tuition costs, $0.70 is paid for by tithing. So basically, students only pay $0.30 for every $1.00 of tuition. I think that's great. As for garments. Bottom line: No one who is endowed and worthy will go without garments if they can't afford them personally.

I agree with you there, jd. As for the three divisions...could be literally any number of possibilities. 1st Part: Unwavering followers of God and Christ 2nd Part: Uncertain at first, took some convincing that Christ should be The One 3rd Part: Rebellious, proud and wanted to take over. Etc...

Acknowledging your contentious nature is not an insult, it's merely an observation. I suppose Nephi was insulting Laman and Lemuel when he pointed out their contentious behavior. And you sure seem in a hurry to establish that I am your enemy because I disagree with you. Disagreement does not equal hatred. You know the old saying about the person who takes offense where none was intended, and the one who takes offense where offense was intended, right? That's correct: they're both fools. Wow, you really are on a quest to establish you have been insulted. I didn't insult you (though you can take insult wherever and whenever you wish, as you apparently do readily). No, don't take disagreement personally. But do take criticism to heart. Your posts all share a common tone of defensiveness, unwillingness to admit even basic points where you are mistaken and a "burn-my-foes-at-the-stake" attitude that is hardly becoming a Christian. Don't you know that you destroy your enemies when you make them your friends? I repeatedly qualified my opinions by noting they were opinions (thus trying to avoid giving the impression that I was insulting you but apparently that failed so I can dispense with that from now on), I complimented your standards (which even a mildly gracious soul would acknowledge instead of ignoring it and turning it into an implicit insult...geez, what IS it with you and wanting to be insulted all the time?), and I offered you the chance to agreeably walk away from a dead discussion. Methinks you are too intent on seeing insults where there are none, and on detecting hatred and crying foul when neither is appropriate. This really will be the last time I respond to you in this thread unless you have new insights or opinions to share. Good bye and have as nice a day as you can between all the hatred and insults that are invariably directed your way by everyone who disagrees with you.

Of course I did. I was being critical of your behavior. You really don't know how to read people's intent, do you? I have to confess that I didn't read your post. I have more important things to do than smack a dead horse with you, but thanks for the invite.

Interesting view. Understood. For me, it is not the violence that is edifying. It is the consideration of WHO is the target of the violence (Jesus), WHY he'd endure it willingly (he loves us), and WHAT is made possible by his enduring that violence (remission of sin and resurrection). I wouldn't enjoy watching random people allow themselves to be crucified in some misguided attempt to atone for their own sins either.

Hi anatess. That's so funny, my wife and I walked out of Hancock after 15 minutes. My wife and I found it difficult to watch "The Passion of the Christ" and it wasn't enjoyable to see all the horrible ways man has found to inflict suffering and death on their fellow mortals. What we walked away with from that viewing experience was a reverential awe at how much Jesus loves us because of what he was willing to undergo for our sakes and salvation. It is not a movie we can view often. In fact, I have watched it twice while she has only seen it once (the second time I saw it). It is disturbing, soul-rending and uncomfortable to watch the man and God we so love being brutalized by sinful men for our benefit. But for us, the fact that it was for our benefit gives value to the experience as we feel to render truer, more sincere and devout gratitude for the matchless sacrifice and peerless display of love that Jesus made in Gethsemane and on Calvary. But that is just us and we see no reason why anyone else needs to feel the same way or want to sit through the whole movie like we did. We are all different and we all find edification and instruction from different sources. Precisely. If someone cannot bear to see naked violence such as that perpetrated against the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh for our sake, then that movie is not for them and that is okay. What is "not good" to you may very well be "good" and "praiseworthy" to me. Paying visual tribute to the single most significant and difficult act known to eternity (Christ's atonement) is the very essence of what I feel is "good" and holy. And it is okay that we feel differently about it, but please know that everyone doesn't think and feel the same things and in the same ways that you do and that it is indeed possible for two temple-worthy, devoted members of the LDS Church to find edification in completely different ways just as Peter and John found joy in completely different desires as recounted in D&C 7. Is it possible that someone wants to not just learn about Normandy but also about the terrible cost we must sometimes pay in fighting for the right and putting down the evil? Certainly. Can visual media offer a different insight than words on a page? Certainly. I don't think the movie was "glorifying" the violence done to the Savior, but that is my perspective. I felt that the movie was glorifying the Savior himself and offering praise for his immense love, love great enough that he would willingly submit to such violence when at any time he could summon twelve legions of angels to destroy the foul sinners who violated his body with instruments of cruelty. It is indeed an assault on the senses. And for me, that's the point. You refer to learning and education but I would propose that those are not the only reasons to watch movies or indeed partake of any activity. I personally am edified when I listen to inspired music in a completely different way than when I read inspired words or view inspired images. And that is where you, I and the makers of countless movies would disagree. And that's the point: reality is far more complex and varied than a "one size fits all" mentality would suggest. Might I ask what you feel was the intent behind the production of "The Passion of the Christ"?

MeIRL, you have quite a contentious spirit. No need to take disagreement so personally. Since you were offended that I did not point-by-point respond to your previous post, I will try to do so with this one. 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." Please read more carefully and more slowly and more 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. Your reduction of the entire talk to one slogan, "Don't watch R-rated movies," was to me inaccurate. But hey, I'm mortal, I've been wrong before and I could very well be wrong now. 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". The letter of the law is to love your enemies: it is not implied, it is commanded by Jesus explicitly. The letter of the law is to dedicate your life and means to helping those around you. It is not implied, it is explicitly enjoined. Perhaps that is why you found my last post so distasteful: we are using different terminology. Precisely, my friend. 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. You must answer that for yourself, as I must answer it for myself. We are clearly different beings with different inclinations, desires and capacities. 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. Hmmm. If an R-rated movie is really, really, really, really, really good (wow, five really's) and if we believe in seeking after virtuous, lovely or praiseworthy influences then it is conceivable that you are limiting your growth and sources of strength, even if you are not forfeiting salvation. Personally, I enjoy all the growth and sources of strength I can find in this wicked world, but again, you are you and I am me and what I find strengthening you might find offensive. That is okay. 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. Let me now clear up your confusion about how I believe the letter/spirit of the law applies to the discussion of R-rated movies (even though I specifically declined to do so earlier because we will no doubt merely disagree and this is therefore a waste of time since my goal in life is not to convince you I'm right and you're wrong). The letter of the "law" as you understand it: Don't watch any R-rated movies, ever, period. 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. Now, "The Passion of the Christ" encourages morality, is devoid of pornography, exalts the sacred and explicitly testifies of Christ's role as our Savior from sin and death. 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 making, and to deny myself of what turned out to be an intensely moving, spiritual experience that renewed my commitment to Christ and expanded my gratitude for his atonement, then yes, I think that is ignoring the spirit of the "law" and is foolish. Do you have to think that? Of course not. Will I criticize you for avoiding media I find edifying? Of course not. Will I rebut your reasons for condemning media I find edifying? Certainly. There, we have both expounded our personal views repeatedly, we both agree we disagree, we both understand the prophets to mean different things, we both use the terms "letter and spirit of the law" to mean different things, and we both choose to watch different movies for different reasons. I know a dead horse when I beat one, and we have arrived at that point. Again, wrong. I was criticizing your reduction of substantive talks to a single-sentence summary that--to me--missed the mark. 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. Phew, okay, this is your last point and my point-by-point response is almost complete. I hope you feel less insulted or ignored after this post. One aspect of my personal discipleship is a desire to lay hold on every thing that strengthens my spirit, that fleshes out my testimony, that condemns Satan and his goals, that refreshes my soul and that brings me closer to my Father and my Savior. So you would be right if you observed that I am more interested in edification than in obeying the letter of the law. While it might seem impossible to you, or a mystery of the most impenetrable sort, I have indeed found edification and I have indeed become closer to my Father through observing the spirit of the "law" and by watching select R-rated movies that are free of pornography, vulgarity and light-mindedness. I see no reason why that should be such a shock. Everyone is different. That's okay.

You will never be guilty of sin by a literal and narrow interpretation of the prophet's counsel. I can't say I don't admire your simplistic and clear stance. There are far worse things a person could do other than refuse to watch R-rated movies. You should be commended for your faithfulness and caution against evil influences. I certainly won't criticize you for your 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. 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. 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. You could argue that we must always obey the letter of the law with exactness. Stop means stop, right? And yet, traffic lights are there to protect life and help avoid injury and death. So is it ever okay to contravene the letter of the law and run a red light? When obeying the letter of the law (stopping at a red light) undermines the purpose or spirit of that law (protect life, prevent injury and death), then we are justified in ignoring the letter of the law's demands and complying with the spirit of the law's purpose. 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. Will your kids lose salvation if they never watch R-rated movies? Nope, and without knowing your children, I would suspect that by default your standard will increase their likelihood of attaining salvation or at least of remaining cleaner than they otherwise might be. I would hope that if your children ever decide to make a decision regarding watching R-rated movies that are free of pornography, blasphemy and light-mindedness that you might be a little more open to the possibility that different people can find edification and instruction in different ways than you or I can. Thanks for the dialogue. I enjoyed it almost as much as I did "The Passion of The Christ".

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. Again, too bad you cherry-picked this quote out of context of the entire talk. Elder Peterson began his talk by saying he wanted to focus on immoral entertainment (movies, CDs, et al). I quote: "My thoughts will center on our sometimes innocent involvement in one of the terrible, unclean things referred to by [Moroni]. Satan, the very devil and the father of all lies, has slyly and slowly lowered the social norms of morality to a tragic and destructive level. In magazines and books, on CDs and tapes, on our television and theater screens is portrayed more and more often a lifestyle that might even rival the excesses of those who lived in Sodom and Gomorrah. The screens, music, and printed materials, etc., are filled with a profusion of sex, nudity, and vulgarity." 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? If you say yes, you are injecting your own opinions into the words of our General Authorities. Enough said. 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. 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. 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. 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 seekers examine ALL the evidence and then draw conclusions. Truth twisters draw conclusions and then gather supporting evidence. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

It occurs to me that D&C Section 7 applies to this topic. Remember how Peter and John each desired different things of Jesus? Consider how Jesus summarizes things: Verily I say unto you, ye shall both have according to your desires, for ye both joy in that which ye have desired. (D&C 7:8) The principle? Even among the apostles--righteous men all--one size does not fit all. Perhaps a simpler generalization would be: Everyone has different capacities and needs and desires. What many of you seem to be saying is that everyone else should not be able to find anything virtuous, lovely or praiseworthy in a movie if it is rated R. What it comes down to is a very important nuance, a very critical difference between: 1. What offends the Spirit. 2. What makes it difficult for YOU to feel the Spirit. Here's an example and a parallel. If I try to tell my wife how my day has been, and if our 13 month old daughter is crying or whining, my wife literally cannot focus on what I'm saying. She is so disturbed by the sound of a crying child (even if it is just whining and not hurt or hungry or tired or sad) that I cannot discuss anything important with her until the crying stops. On the other hand, I can listen to someone else talk to me if my daughter is whining/crying at the same time. Like the apostles of old, my wife and I are just different. Not better than or worse than the other. Just different. We have different needs, desires and capacities (she can operate far better on far less sleep than I could ever think of!). Imagine how ridiculous it would be for me to label my wife as "inconsiderate" or "weak" for NOT being able to focus on something else while our daughter is crying. Imagine how absurd it would be for my wife to label me as "thoughtless" or "unfeeling" for my BEING able to do the very thing she finds difficult. Same thing with movies/media and the Spirit. Once you eliminate explicit examples of what offends the Spirit, what you are left with is a host of things that may or may not make it difficult for you or your neighbor to feel the Spirit. Is the Spirit by default offended when filmmakers depict realistic battles from world history that involve men bleeding and/or dying? Perhaps, perhaps not. Is the Spirit offended when your neighbor blasts the 1812 Overture above city-approved noise levels? Probably not. Does having music that loud make it difficult for you to feel the Spirit or think clearly? Perhaps, it depends on who you are and what your capacities are. It seems incredibly arrogant to me for someone to tell me what should or should not interfere with my ability to feel the Spirit. Peter made the same mistake. Why should John get power over death? Shouldn't he desire the same thing I and the 10 other apostles desired? Can someone else derive edification or inspiration or enlightenment by watching content that has been rated "R" by other mortals? Unless you know their hearts the way the Lord does, you'd be wise to admit that you don't know and aren't sure and that, in the interests of judging righteously, you will leave their media choices between them and the Lord. Exception: the things that obviously and clearly offend the Spirit, and by extension Jesus, and by extension the Father. A list might include: 1. Taking the Lord's name in vain. 2. Pornography in all its shades and guises. 3. Light mindedness (showing a blatant disregard for the sacred and holy) You can submit other examples I'm sure. The overall principle here is this: What offends YOU may not offend the Spirit or your neighbor. What offends your neighbor may or may not offend the Spirit or you. People are different. Capacities for focus and spiritual sensitivity are different. If you cannot focus on anything past the fact that blood is spurting from a gunshot wound in a soldier's chest as he struggles across a battlefield, then that movie is not for you and no one should make you feel stupid for saying, "I do not find this edifying." If your neighbor can see past the graphic portrayal of one soldier's mortality and focus on the theme or symbolism behind the blood and find edification therein, then that movie may be for them and no one should make them feel stupid for saying, "I do find this edifying." To many, violence is like a crying baby that they cannot ignore or observe and still focus on other ideas and images at the same time. That is fine, and in many cases, admirable. Heaven forbid we become too comfortable with violence or watching horrible things happen to our brothers and sisters. To many others, violence is like a crying baby that while not desirable (who enjoys listening to a crying baby?) is not offensive in itself and may in fact accompany important lessons about morality, sin, virtue and courage. Again, one size does not fit all. Those of you with children, and those of you with siblings, and those of you with friends (that should cover almost all of you), are all of the important people in your life exactly the same? Do you tell the same jokes around all of them? Do you treat them all exactly the same? Of course not. Everyone is different and the Christian person focuses on the needs of the individual be they whatever they are. Growing up, I could handle a later curfew and greater responsibility in some cases than one of my siblings because I was more interested in being obedient. My parents would have been unwise indeed to say, "Well, we should all have the same rules so everyone's curfew will be the same." That would have lead to one of two problems: 1. Punishing obedience (if I had been given the same curfew as my sibling) 2. Rewarding disobedience (if my sibling had been given my curfew) The virtue of a democratic society can also be its greatest weakness: fair treatment does NOT equal identical treatment. Fair implies appropriate to the situation, condition and people involved. So it is with movies. Perhaps one of your children would find edification and substance in a film like, "Saving Private Ryan," while another of your children would be emotionally damaged by such portrayals of historic reality. If we wouldn't insist that all children be the same and have the same capacities, why do we turn around and insist that all the children of Christ (reborn covenant Church members) be the same and have the same capacities? Everyone's spiritual sensitivity and maturity varies throughout their lives and even sometimes day to day. Can you judge perfectly? Has the Lord given you special revelation into the capacities, motivations and desires of those who may watch content you find objectionable? If not, then wisdom dictates we hold our tongue and focus on our own weaknesses. Has a prophet specifically mentioned the words "don't watch" and "R rated movies" in the same sentence, on purpose, in a public address or article? Sure. Has that same prophet in that same speech or article said other things which clarify the context of his remarks and indicate it is not really the letter we are to avoid as much as it is the content associated with movies that bear that letter? Yes. In the end, much arguing, bad feelings and contention can be avoided if we remember the issue is usually more complex than: "Does this movie offend the Spirit?" It is usually, "Does it offend me personally and if so, should if offend everyone else too?" For those with open minds or at the very least, a modicum of curiosity and ability to not only endure but enjoy fair-minded debate, consider this excellent and insightful contribution by Orson Scott Card: Is There an R-rated Movie Commandment? - by Orson Scott Card

Absolutely. What you're talking about is related to counsel and direction, whereas I was speaking strictly of doctrine. I'm not saying the Prophet can't direct me to use my priesthood to serve in a certain calling unless that request is added to the standard works! :)

Not really. The Canon signifies that which is the official doctrine of the Lord, as given to His Church. The Canon is the yardstick against which we measure every doctrine. The Canon sets the standard for doctrine and principle. Statements by current leaders are not canonical unless: 1.) It is an official proclamation by the First Pres. and the Quorum of the 12 combined; or... 2.) It is submitted for a sustaining vote in General Conference of the whole Church before being added to the standard works.

Hey Heather, I'm glad to see the site is still up and running strong. Deseret told me they purchase from distributors only now instead of independents like me, so I did send a sample of my game to both Granite Distribution and Sounds of Zion, both of whom Deseret does business with. For now, neither distributor is interested in taking it on, so my plan is to sell enough copies to enough bookstores myself and then ask them again, showing that there is interest in the game and that if they would just use their marketing power, it could be a profitable success for them and me. We'll see how it goes. Thanks for the congrats! :)

Thanks Strawberry, it's good to "hear" a few familiar voices after so long. I must have misplaced your address, sorry about the wedding invite. Yes, DigitalShadow, planning out the DVD tracks, chapters, menus and scripts was quite intensive but in the end, possible for one guy. I designed the DVD in DVD Studio Pro, and rendered the animations in Vue 6 Infinite.

Thanks Maureen. :)

Check the New Testament, John 17:12. Christ clearly identifies Judas as a Son of Perdition.

Take your time, I'm not in any hurry. :)

Hahahaha, I see you guys are still up to your old games (no pun intended). :) Thanks CM, I'm excited. Pam, I'll make sure to mail yours as soon as I get your order form!