"R" rated movies

[Guest Alana]

i know it's not likely to keep you from getting a temple recommend or anything, but is it still a rule or is it like drinking caffeine?

I think of it more like a rule, a specific recommendation from general authorities. The thing with watching a raunchy movie, I can't feel the Spirit after that. With a cola, doesn't impair anything other than how thirsty I was.

[Suzie]

This thread reminds me to the other one about doctrine. It is all good if a person desires not to watch R rated movies or no drink Coke, etc but if in the process of focusing in these small little things they don't do their Home Teaching/VT every month and in this way they do not look after the welfare of their brothers and sisters... in what way it profits them? I think most of the time, we miss the bigger picture.

[Generally_Me]

Some raunchy movies aren't R. And some Rs aren't raunchy.

Personally we go on a case-by-case, using online tools to research the movie. I found Schindler's List to be a one-time, very good movie.

Meanwhile, some prime time cartoon shows drive away the spirit very, very quickly...but they are rated for most audiences, and on TV during prime evening time.

[talisyn]

If I absolutely must know what the plot of a rated R movie is I go to themoviespoiler.com. It tells everything about the movie without all the nasty imagery and language. My curiosity is satisfied and I go back to watching Spongebob

[Guest]

So would this include investing in the stock market since that is a form of gambling?

Investing in the stock market is not a form of gambling. Not sure why you say that.

If you're saying it's gambling because there's a chance you might lose money then it would be just like you saying opening up a restaurant (or any business, really) is gambling, so you shouldn't open up a restaurant either.

[Guest]

Some raunchy movies aren't R. And some Rs aren't raunchy.

Personally we go on a case-by-case, using online tools to research the movie. I found Schindler's List to be a one-time, very good movie.

Meanwhile, some prime time cartoon shows drive away the spirit very, very quickly...but they are rated for most audiences, and on TV during prime evening time.

I couldn't watch Schindler's list. No, not because LDS says No to R... I was Catholic when that movie came out. It's just too much barage to my psyche.

I can fully grasp the horrors of WW II without me seeing actors' private parts.

I couldn't watch Passion of the Christ either. I didn't last long in that movie.

So, yeah, there's a reason I avoid R-rated shows as much as possible regardless of the "wholesomeness" of the subject matter. It's just too much. Okay, so I enjoyed the Matrix. So, I'm not perfect.

Edited February 4, 2010 by anatess

[Carl62]

Investing in the stock market is not a form of gambling. Not sure why you say that.

Only because my Stake President said it was, that's all. Tell me, what is the difference if I use my money with the thought of trying to create more money through the stock market or by a slot machine? It's the same thing!!!

Edited February 4, 2010 by Carl62

[Wisc]

* G -- "General Audience - All Ages Admitted": Applied when a film contains no nudity, sexual content, drug use or strong language. Violence is minimal and the theme of the movie is deemed appropriate for young children. According to the MPAA, a G rating does not indicate the film is a children's movie.

* PG -- "Parental Guidance Suggested. Some Material May Not Be Suitable For Children": The Rating Board applies this rating when the members believe the film contains themes or content that parents may find inappropriate for younger children. The film can contain some profanity, violence or brief nudity, but only in relatively mild intensity. A PG film should not include drug use.

* PG-13 -- "Parents Strongly Cautioned. Some Material May Be Inappropriate For Children Under 13." The MPAA added this rating in 1984 to denote films in which violence, profanity or sexual content is intense enough that many parents would not want to expose their younger children to the film, but not so intense as to warrant an R rating. Any movie featuring drug use will get at least a PG-13 rating. A PG-13 movie can include a single use of what the board deems a "harsher, sexually derived word," as long as it is only used as an expletive, not in a sexual context.

(What that means is you can use the word "F**k" as long as its only used as a swear word and not as a verb; ie, lets go... "____" This applies to nudity as well. If you see someone naked because they are changing clothes its not given an R rating unless they are nude and about to engage in some form of sexual act or situation).

* R --"Restricted. Under 17 Requires Accompanying Parent or Adult Guardian": The Rating Board applies this rating to movies the members believe contain a high level of adult content, such as harsh profanity, intense violence, explicit sexual content and extensive drug use. In some states, the minimum age to see an R rated movie unaccompanied is 18.

* NC-17: "No One 17 And Under Admitted": Originally called X, this rating is applied to films the board believes most parents will consider inappropriate for children. It indicates only that adult content is more intense than in an R movie; it does not imply any sort of obscenity. As with films rated R, the minimum age to see a NC-17 movie is 18 in some states.

I believe we were told to not see ANY "R" rated movies because most of us were too stupid to use our discretion wisely. In my opinion there are PG movies (esp from the 1980's) that are as bad if not worse than some PG13 or even a mild R movie. And there are MANY MANY PG13 movies that are soo much worse than R movies.

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!

[hordak]

* G -- "General Audience - All Ages Admitted": Applied when a film contains no nudity, sexual content, drug use or strong language. Violence is minimal and the theme of the movie is deemed appropriate for young children. According to the MPAA, a G rating does not indicate the film is a children's movie.

* PG -- "Parental Guidance Suggested. Some Material May Not Be Suitable For Children": The Rating Board applies this rating when the members believe the film contains themes or content that parents may find inappropriate for younger children. The film can contain some profanity, violence or brief nudity, but only in relatively mild intensity. A PG film should not include drug use.

* PG-13 -- "Parents Strongly Cautioned. Some Material May Be Inappropriate For Children Under 13." The MPAA added this rating in 1984 to denote films in which violence, profanity or sexual content is intense enough that many parents would not want to expose their younger children to the film, but not so intense as to warrant an R rating. Any movie featuring drug use will get at least a PG-13 rating. A PG-13 movie can include a single use of what the board deems a "harsher, sexually derived word," as long as it is only used as an expletive, not in a sexual context.

(What that means is you can use the word "F**k" as long as its only used as a swear word and not as a verb; ie, lets go... "____" This applies to nudity as well. If you see someone naked because they are changing clothes its not given an R rating unless they are nude and about to engage in some form of sexual act or situation).

* R --"Restricted. Under 17 Requires Accompanying Parent or Adult Guardian": The Rating Board applies this rating to movies the members believe contain a high level of adult content, such as harsh profanity, intense violence, explicit sexual content and extensive drug use. In some states, the minimum age to see an R rated movie unaccompanied is 18.

* NC-17: "No One 17 And Under Admitted": Originally called X, this rating is applied to films the board believes most parents will consider inappropriate for children. It indicates only that adult content is more intense than in an R movie; it does not imply any sort of obscenity. As with films rated R, the minimum age to see a NC-17 movie is 18 in some states.

I believe we were told to not see ANY "R" rated movies because most of us were too stupid to use our discretion wisely. In my opinion there are PG movies (esp from the 1980's) that are as bad if not worse than some PG13 or even a mild R movie. And there are MANY MANY PG13 movies that are soo much worse than R movies.

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!

Is that the newest guidelines? I recall them talking about making a movie R rated if it included smoking (unless it was in a historical way). That would make 101 Dalmatians R:eek:

[Wisc]

Is that the newest guidelines? I recall them talking about making a movie R rated if it included smoking (unless it was in a historical way). That would make 101 Dalmatians R:eek:

I haven't heard about the smoking issue but IF that is true then it illustrates my point wonderfully!! A movie with a word of wisdom issue gets an R rating and kids miss a movie classic because they cant see it based solely on the R on the back of the box.... but would be able to see (to use the same example) The Goonies which isnt rated R but FULL of profanity! and has no real moral story to tell.

[Wingnut]

Is that the newest guidelines? I recall them talking about making a movie R rated if it included smoking (unless it was in a historical way).

There was a big push for such stringent regulations, but I don't think that was ever made a rule. However, smoking is taken into consideration when giving a rating.

[Guest]

Only because my Stake President said it was, that's all. Tell me, what is the difference if I use my money with the thought of trying to create more money through the stock market or by a slot machine? It's the same thing!!!

IT IS NOT THE SAME THING!!! Your Stake President is wrong.

In the Stock Market you are using your INTELLIGENCE to EARN money.

In the slot machine you are going with the LUCK OF THE DRAW hence gambling.

Now, if you put your money on the stock market without studying the market - just hoping to get lucky, then yes, that's gambling. It's the same thing as using a doctor's scalpel to slit throats instead of performing surgery. It's not the Stock Market that makes it gambling - it's the people.

Slot machines or a Lotto Ticket - you put money in it, there's no other purpose for it but gambling.

[talisyn]

Considering the hit my 401k's taken the past few years, I'd have better luck buying 100 powerball tickets a paycheck

[Justice]

Investing and gambling are VERY different. THe Church invensts, but it does not gamble.

Think of the parable of the talents...

[Wisc]

IT IS NOT THE SAME THING!!! Your Stake President is wrong.

In the Stock Market you are using your INTELLIGENCE to EARN money.

In the slot machine you are going with the LUCK OF THE DRAW hence gambling.

Now, if you put your money on the stock market without studying the market - just hoping to get lucky, then yes, that's gambling. It's the same thing as using a doctor's scalpel to slit throats instead of performing surgery. It's not the Stock Market that makes it gambling - it's the people.

Slot machines or a Lotto Ticket - you put money in it, there's no other purpose for it but gambling.

This could be argued... it takes years of training and education and experience to be truly effective at "playing the stock market". (funny that that phrase is coined isnt it??)

But for someone who is truly commited to learning how to earn money from say, poker, or slot machines... they arguably have as good or better a chance of making money consistantly. Watch the championship poker tournaments.. usually the same group of people competing. And for those of us who frequent Vegas you know that if you look around you'll notice there is usually some house wife or older lady watching the slots but not really playing them.... thats because she is watching to see what slot machines are being played the most!! The ones that are played more often are closer to "paying out" because Las Vegas law mandates that machines pay out so often for so many times played. Otherwise there would be slots that were rigged to never let you win! So, what she is doing is waiting for a slot to get played a few dozen times then when the person leaves after losing 40 times in a row, she will go put her quarter in and BAM BING BING BING suddenly the slot lands on jackpot. She wasnt gambling she was "playing the system"

So in short gambling and the market are more the same than different. I could write a thousond word essay on this easily but I think I've made a good enough point here.

[Guest]

This could be argued... it takes years of training and education and experience to be truly effective at "playing the stock market". (funny that that phrase is coined isnt it??)

But for someone who is truly commited to learning how to earn money from say, poker, or slot machines... they arguably have as good or better a chance of making money consistantly. Watch the championship poker tournaments.. usually the same group of people competing. And for those of us who frequent Vegas you know that if you look around you'll notice there is usually some house wife or older lady watching the slots but not really playing them.... thats because she is watching to see what slot machines are being played the most!! The ones that are played more often are closer to "paying out" because Las Vegas law mandates that machines pay out so often for so many times played. Otherwise there would be slots that were rigged to never let you win! So, what she is doing is waiting for a slot to get played a few dozen times then when the person leaves after losing 40 times in a row, she will go put her quarter in and BAM BING BING BING suddenly the slot lands on jackpot. She wasnt gambling she was "playing the system"

So in short gambling and the market are more the same than different. I could write a thousond word essay on this easily but I think I've made a good enough point here.

I can write a thousand word essay on it as well. So we can agree to disagree.

But the fact of the matter is...

If gambling = stock market is true, then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints led by its First Presidency is knowingly actively involved in gambling.

If you agree with the above statement, then I'll agree with you.

[hordak]

Slot machines or a Lotto Ticket - you put money in it, there's no other purpose for it but gambling.

slots and Lotto are for suckers.

The purpose is to provide a source of income for the indigenous people who's land "we" took.

[Wisc]

I can write a thousand word essay on it as well. So we can agree to disagree.

But the fact of the matter is...

If gambling = stock market is true, then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints led by its First Presidency is knowingly actively involved in gambling.

If you agree with the above statement, then I'll agree with you.

Lets see what an expert on the matter has to say....

Swan Financial Planning, LLC, a registered investment adviser in New Jersey.

I often hear some variation of the question, “What’s the difference between the stock markets and casinos?” So, I’ll share my typical answer…

While there are several small similarities between casinos and stock markets, there is one large difference. If you go to a casino, buy in, never place a single bet, and then cash out, you receive the same dollar amount you bought in at, regardless of when you cash out.

Now imagine if casinos valued their chips based on how well the casino as a whole is doing. Over the course of a day, the value of those chips might increase or decrease, but let’s say that over time, the increases tended to exceed the decreases. This is more like what has happened with the U.S. stock market.

With the stock market, you can buy into the market as a whole using a broad market index fund, never make a single “bet,” and then cash out at some future point, with the idea that over time the value of your investment can grow along with the market if the market continues to grow.

At the casino, players place bets with the hope of winning (walking away with more than if they never bet at all). In the casino, that would be leaving with any amount greater than what they came in with. People try to do this because they feel lucky, skilled, or believe they have some kind of system.

In the stock market, people trade to try to “win” (walk away with more than if they didn’t trade at all), but in this case a “win” would mean leaving the market with more money than if they simply bought in and didn’t make any trades. People try to do this because they feel lucky, skilled, or believe they have some kind of system. The traders in the market are really not that different from the gamblers in a casino.

In both cases the odds of winning (adding value through betting/trading) are against you, but at least the market lets you participate in its overall growth potential just by being there. Trading, like casino gambling, is a negative-sum-game. For every dollar won over the market, one must be lost; furthermore, whether you’re a winner or loser, you must also pay financial intermediaries.

To summarize, both stock markets and casinos provide the chance to try to do better than others by making bets. Neither have odds that favor a strategy of trying to do better through making bets. Stock markets give you the potential to participate in their growth without making bets. Casinos do not.

[BenRaines]

I have been a licensed stockbroker for over 20 years. I have never "played" the market. I have invested in it and helped many others invest in it. At one time I managed over 80 million dollars of investor assets. Investing in stocks is buying a piece of ownership in a company. Buying stocks because someone says they like it or because you heard that it was up 100% in the last period of time is not investing. That is gambling.

But I am curious what this has to do with R rated movies. I didn't read the whole thread.

Ben Raines

[Guest]

Lets see what an expert on the matter has to say....

Swan Financial Planning, LLC, a registered investment adviser in New Jersey.

I often hear some variation of the question, “What’s the difference between the stock markets and casinos?” So, I’ll share my typical answer…

While there are several small similarities between casinos and stock markets, there is one large difference. If you go to a casino, buy in, never place a single bet, and then cash out, you receive the same dollar amount you bought in at, regardless of when you cash out.

Now imagine if casinos valued their chips based on how well the casino as a whole is doing. Over the course of a day, the value of those chips might increase or decrease, but let’s say that over time, the increases tended to exceed the decreases. This is more like what has happened with the U.S. stock market.

With the stock market, you can buy into the market as a whole using a broad market index fund, never make a single “bet,” and then cash out at some future point, with the idea that over time the value of your investment can grow along with the market if the market continues to grow.

At the casino, players place bets with the hope of winning (walking away with more than if they never bet at all). In the casino, that would be leaving with any amount greater than what they came in with. People try to do this because they feel lucky, skilled, or believe they have some kind of system.

In the stock market, people trade to try to “win” (walk away with more than if they didn’t trade at all), but in this case a “win” would mean leaving the market with more money than if they simply bought in and didn’t make any trades. People try to do this because they feel lucky, skilled, or believe they have some kind of system. The traders in the market are really not that different from the gamblers in a casino.

In both cases the odds of winning (adding value through betting/trading) are against you, but at least the market lets you participate in its overall growth potential just by being there. Trading, like casino gambling, is a negative-sum-game. For every dollar won over the market, one must be lost; furthermore, whether you’re a winner or loser, you must also pay financial intermediaries.

To summarize, both stock markets and casinos provide the chance to try to do better than others by making bets. Neither have odds that favor a strategy of trying to do better through making bets. Stock markets give you the potential to participate in their growth without making bets. Casinos do not.

Wisc, you completely ignored my other post. Are you LDS?

[Wisc]

I didnt ignore. I just showed you that Market = Gambling (+/-) Meaning you can "gamble" with the same skill as a Market Trader when he is "gambling" on what the market might do. Ever hear of investing in futures?

Also, some of the most sucessful traders got that way by "betting" against the market whenever other skilled and experienced traders were betting for success. Yes its not quite as blind as a game of poker is (unless you can count cards) but playing the market is little more than a well educated guess at best.

If it were not the case then investment firms wouldnt put the little fine print of how the gains they promise are "typical of gains in the past and may not reflect future dividends"

Edited February 5, 2010 by Wisc

[Wingnut]

Well, since we're talking about Church policy and not worldly definitions, perhaps we ought to see how the Church defines gambling:

Gambling is motivated by a desire to get something for nothing. This desire is spiritually destructive. It leads participants away from the Savior's teachings of love and service and toward the selfishness of the adversary. It undermines the virtues of work and thrift and the desire to give honest effort in all we do.

Those who participate in gambling soon discover the deception in the idea that they can give little or nothing and receive something of value in return. They find that they give up large amounts of money, their own honor, and the respect of family members and friends. Deceived and addicted, they often gamble with funds they should use for other purposes, such as meeting the basic needs of their families. Gamblers sometimes become so enslaved and so desperate to pay gambling debts that they turn to stealing, giving up their own good name.

Source

[Suzie]

Elder Dallin H. Oaks:

I further suggest that the same spirit of gambling, the same reckless wagering on the chance turn of events, characterizes some forms of investments. The same evils that attend a throw of the dice for money can attend the person who casually puts his money on a highly speculative stock or commodity investment. I know of no better test in this area than that suggested by President Joseph F. Smith, who remarked:

“The element of chance enters very largely into everything we undertake, and it should be remembered that the spirit in which we do things decides very largely whether we are gambling or are entering into legitimate business enterprises.”

LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Evils of Gambling

[Guest]

I didnt ignore. I just showed you that Market = Gambling (+/-) Meaning you can "gamble" with the same skill as a Market Trader when he is "gambling" on what the market might do. Ever hear of investing in futures?

Also, some of the most sucessful traders got that way by "betting" against the market whenever other skilled and experienced traders were betting for success. Yes its not quite as blind as a game of poker is (unless you can count cards) but playing the market is little more than a well educated guess at best.

If it were not the case then investment firms wouldnt put the little fine print of how the gains they promise are "typical of gains in the past and may not reflect future dividends"

No, you didn't read my post because you didn't answer my question.

I asked - do you believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints led by its First Presidency is gambling? This question stems from the fact that the LDS church has stock market investments for their funds.

The reason I ask this is because if your answer is Yes, then okay, I'll take your definition of gambling and I will agree. Then we can move on to the discussion of why the Church gambles yet advices its membership not to. If your answer is No, then you can explain to me why not and that will resolve our difference in definition of the word gambling.

This is a much easier way to resolve our discussion than me trying to explain to you why investing is not gambling.

Edited February 7, 2010 by anatess

[Carl62]

For those that still think investing in the stock market isn't gambling, check this out: www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/20