"R" rated movies

[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.

[annamaureen]

When I was young, I accidentally stumbled across an adult film on TV late at night. I watched maybe fifteen seconds but I still remember it in explict detail, over a decade later. I can't imagine what it must be like for a porn addict; even if you repent and wash away the sin, that doesn't mean you'll forget what you've seen and done.

[marts1]

I was into that stuff for I guess about 10 years. I say guess becuase I have forgotten. The cleansing power of the Spirit is very real.

[CrimsonKairos]

Explicit, blunt instruction given by Ezra Taft Benson, the prophet and Church president at the time:

Don’t see R-rated movies or vulgar videos or participate in any entertainment that is immoral, suggestive, or pornographic.

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.

Here is another reference:

Again I say, leave it alone. Turn it off, walk away from it, burn it, erase it, destroy it. 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.

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.

Edited February 16, 2010 by CrimsonKairos

[MeIRL]

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.

[CrimsonKairos]

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.

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".

Edited February 16, 2010 by CrimsonKairos

[MeIRL]

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.

[Guest]

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".

I saw half of Passion of the Christ ® and I walked out of it. I saw half of Hancock (PG-13) and I walked out of it.

The thing about it is THERE IS A REASON it is R-Rated. The only way you can tell if an R-Rated movie is tolerable (all of them contain something that is not good about it - that's why it is R rated) is to go watch it. At that point - it is too late.

You can justify that watching Private Ryan contains important historical accounts of the battle of Normandy, so you can sit through 20 minutes of blood and gore for it. Sure. But you can learn about Normandy some other way without having to watch an R-rated movie for it.

I know what the Saviour went through. I know the gravity of it. The scriptural accounts of it are pretty clear on what happened. Watching that violence glorified in full color in the Passion of Christ does not, in any way, add to my testimony. It is an assault to the senses.

When the prophets say avoid R-Rated movies, they meant it as stated. R-rated movies are leisure mediums. They do not contain anything educational that cannot be obtained by other methods. It is not intended to save lives. It is not intended to improve spirituality. At least an alcoholic beverage may contain a medicinal purpose. And tobacco can kill the critters that eat up your lawn. R-rated movies has no other purpose.

But, that's just me.

Edited February 16, 2010 by anatess

[CrimsonKairos]

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."

No, I'd have to say I don't believe your claim about not criticizing me for my personal standard of media consumption.

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.

[*]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 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.

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.

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.

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.

If such avoidance means we might occasionally miss out on the decent and even edifying movie, what of 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.

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.

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.

Lovely. Now please provide an example where avoiding an R-rated movie will immediately result in the physical or spiritual death of a person.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Edited February 16, 2010 by CrimsonKairos

[CrimsonKairos]

Hi anatess.

I saw half of Passion of the Christ ® and I walked out of it. I saw half of Hancock (PG-13) and I walked out of it.

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.

The thing about it is THERE IS A REASON it is R-Rated.

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.

The only way you can tell if an R-Rated movie is tolerable (all of them contain something that is not good about it - that's why it is R rated).

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.

But you can learn about Normandy some other way without having to watch an R-rated movie for it.

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.

Watching that violence glorified in full color in the Passion of Christ does not, in any way, add to my testimony. It is an assault to the senses.

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.

They do not contain anything educational that cannot be obtained by other methods.

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.

It is not intended to improve spirituality.

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"?

[Guest]

Might I ask what you feel was the intent behind the production of "The Passion of the Christ"?

I used to be Catholic. Mel Gibson is a devout one. Sure, you can say that Mel Gibson's primary intent was missionary work. But, if that was the case, he will not make it slide to the R-Rated category as he knows even the Catholic Church cautions against them. His primary intent was to entertain - that includes pulling your heart-strings with as much violence as he can pack into a movie for mass impact.

Okay, every year, in several towns in the Philippines - you will find 3 people getting crucified - FOR REAL. This is called the Passion of the Christ re-enactment during Good Friday. Millions of people watch these guys get crucified - Jesus and the 2 criminals. I saw it once and I will never see it again. It is horrible to watch people go through pain and suffering in the hopes that it will atone for their sins. Those who are not picked to be crucified (there is a long waiting list!) go on a procession on the roads carrying whips tipped with broken glass that they swat across their backs. They consider it their penance. That kind of violence is not spiritually edifying. Not for me. No matter what the intent.

[CrimsonKairos]

His primary intent was to entertain - that includes pulling your heart-strings with as much violence as he can pack into a movie for mass impact.

Interesting view.

That kind of violence is not spiritually edifying. Not for me. No matter what the intent.

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.

[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 making

Please 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).

[CrimsonKairos]

But I'm sure you mean no criticism in saying that.

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.

[MeIRL]

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.

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?

Edited February 16, 2010 by MeIRL

[CrimsonKairos]

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.

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.

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?

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.

Edited February 16, 2010 by CrimsonKairos

[svanneck]

As a non-member, I agree with the policy not to watch movies that have gratuitous violence or sexual content in them, even as an adult. However, I wonder if it is overly simplistic simply to say "Don't watch R-Rated movies". If the Church had its own ratings board, then I could see that being a viable thing, but in effect it is saying to rely on the judgment of the MPAA as to what you should or shouldn't watch. Firstly the MPAA categories are overly broad, and secondly they're very inconsistent, as has been noted earlier.

Not only are movies such as Schindler's List lumped in with all the frat movies, I also find that some MPAA ratings seem to be biased in favor of or against a certain message, e.g. I did not find anything in the movie Kingdom of Heaven (with Orlando Bloom) to warrant an R rating, and I can't help but feel that the MPAA was unhappy with the movie's negative portrayal of the Crusaders.

My wife and I have resorted to all but ignoring the MPAA ratings wherever there is a Netflix rating available. Netflix has a very detailed rating system that not only looks at age-appropriateness, but also at specific examples of immoral behavior, language, drug- and alcohol use, etc. This was brought home to us recently as we watched the new movie "Fame", which was rated PG but should have at least been rated PG-13 due to a lot of objectionable scenes, in my view. When we later looked at Netflix, they had rated it "Iffy for 12+" and listed all of the things which I had a problem with. Had we first looked there, we would not have watched it with our kids. An opposite example is the movie "Frost/Nixon", which the MPAA rates R but Netflix says is OK for 14+.

I think ultimately we cannot rely on someone else making the decision for us. We need to educate ourselves and use our own best judgment to decide what is healthy for our kids and ourselves to watch. This may include making trade-offs, such as allowing kids to see a movie with a few bad words (which they hear in school every day) but which otherwise is a good movie with an important message.

Just my 2 cents...

[CrimsonKairos]

Well said, svanneck.

[Carl62]

So what has been said about this through our current LIVING prophets and apostles? After all, doesn't what a living prophet says (or doesn't say) override what a dead prophet says? That's what I got hammered into me in a previous thread where I tried to bring up something that was clearly stated and even signed by the entire First Presidency 25-30 years ago, only to have it overturned by the new "living prophet vs. dead prophet" counsel because nothing has been recently said about it (at least within the last 10 years anyway). Does the CHI say anything about avoiding R-rated movies?

[Blackmarch]

So what has been said about this through our current LIVING prophets and apostles? After all, doesn't what a living prophet says (or doesn't say) override what a dead prophet says? That's what I got hammered into me in a previous thread where I tried to bring up something that was clearly stated and even signed by the entire First Presidency 25-30 years ago, only to have it overturned by the new "living prophet vs. dead prophet" counsel because nothing has been recently said about it (at least within the last 10 years anyway). Does the CHI say anything about avoiding R-rated movies?

Pretty much don't.. altho recently theres been more of a "you know what is right or wrong, it's up to you to decide" bit also added. I imagine due to the degradation of moral qualities in movies, to such a point that now what was once R can sometime now go as PG 13. and that the US movie rating system isn't as clear cut as it once was.

[CrimsonKairos]

Carl62, was what you were referring to 25-30 years ago a matter of policy or practice, or was it doctrinal?

For example, Joseph Smith instituted polygamy as approved of the Lord.

Later, Wilford Woodruff ended polygamy as an action approved of the Lord.

So if you were to cling to what Joseph Smith said to the exclusion of what Wilford Woodruff said, that would be an error. Policy, practice and modern counsel are areas where living prophets shine.

For doctrine, the eternal truths that undergird and comprise the gospel plan of salvation with all that entails...for doctrine like that we turn to the scriptures.

One exception: If the prophet/president reveals a new revelation to be added to the scriptures, it must be unanimously approved in a general meeting of Church members worldwide and may then be added to the standard works.

But no prophet is ever going to reveal a new "scripture" that contradicts standard doctrine. In other words, Pres. Monson nor any of his successors as President of the Church will ever say, "You know it's the strangest thing, but an angel told me last night that we don't need to be baptized anymore!"

In the end, this is what it comes down to: there are two kinds of people in the Church.

1. Pharisees in members' clothing who cannot and will not think beyond the literal words of prophets.

2. Members who study not just what the prophet said, but to whom he said it and why he said it.

Note that group #2 does not disobey the prophets' counsel, they simply grasp the fulness of that counsel. When a prophet says, "Avoid R-rated movies and anything with immoral, vulgar, pornographic content," he is implying that in his experience all R-rated movies have immoral, vulgar, pornographic content, and it is that content that we are to avoid regardless of whether a movie is R or PG-13.

What do you think of the member who pats themselves on the back for not watching any R-rated movies no matter what they are about, but who then sits down and watches "Dancing with the Stars" with its attendant soft-porn costumes, or who watches any number of TV shows such as CSI: Miami or others that take place near beaches and regularly show women so scantily clad that they would be right at home on the set of a porn movie?

So Pharisees wait to be counseled and then will rather die than deviate from the literal prophetic counsel, but then fail to see the spirit behind the counsel and watch themselves in all things, not just what is specifically mentioned.

Morality and obedience is not about a checklist of do's and don'ts, it is about gleaning principles and living them without having to be commanded.

So for those who rest assured they are following the prophet's counsel by not watching R-rated movies...take a moment and review all the other media you consume whether TV, music, magazines, video games, internet, etc. Is there anything vulgar, immoral or pornographic in any of the other media you consume? Do you listen to rap music that glorifies abuse and selfish use of women for carnal satisfaction? Do you visit gossip internet sites that feature the current stars of hollywood in all their immodest glory? The list goes on, think it over.

If so, you have heard what the prophet said but you were not listening and you are definitely not following his counsel.

Edited February 19, 2010 by CrimsonKairos

[bluebee]

I believe the council given, not to watch "R" rated movies, is still in effect today. We can look to the Articles of Faith as a guide. As stated at the end of the thirteenth Article of Faith, "If there is anything virtous, lovely or of good report or praisworthy, we seek after these things." We can ask the questions: Is it praisworthy? Is it of good report or virtous?

[CrimsonKairos]

We can ask the questions: Is it praisworthy? Is it of good report or virtous?

Precisely. And as I pointed out many, many posts ago, each of us will answer that differently for ourselves. Some people--myself included--have found good and virtue in R-rated movies like "The Passion of the Christ".

Hasten the day when people will take responsibility for their media choices instead of leaving it up to the arbitrarily-chosen MPAA and what they think is virtuous, lovely, of good report or praiseworthy.

Where is the wisdom in letting Babylon dictate your media choices?

[MarginOfError]

So what has been said about this through our current LIVING prophets and apostles? After all, doesn't what a living prophet says (or doesn't say) override what a dead prophet says? That's what I got hammered into me in a previous thread where I tried to bring up something that was clearly stated and even signed by the entire First Presidency 25-30 years ago, only to have it overturned by the new "living prophet vs. dead prophet" counsel because nothing has been recently said about it (at least within the last 10 years anyway). Does the CHI say anything about avoiding R-rated movies?

Nope, the Church is pretty silent on the issue of R-rated movies now. The place in which is was most prominent was in the For the Strength of Youth pamphlet. But in 2001 or 2002, the pamphlet was revised and the R-rated restriction was scrubbed. In it's place was the counsel to be judicious in the media you take in.

The two extreme interpretations I've heard with regard to that change are "we shouldn't be watching PG-13 anymore either" to "it doesn't matter what we watch." Both extremes I usually hear from people wanting to justify their own interpretation. I'm a lot more comfortable with the interpretation that it is given to us to determine what satisfies the conditions of the Thirteenth Article of Faith.

[CrimsonKairos]

"it doesn't matter what we watch."

I agree with that if by that you mean, "It doesn't matter what rating a movie has as long as it is virtuous, praiseworthy and of good report."

The converse is also true: "It doesn't matter what rating a movie has if it is NOT virtuous, praiseworthy and of good report."

So just because some folks in L.A. slap a PG-13 or even PG rating on a movie doesn't mean it's automatically going to edify and be good for us because "at least it isn't R-rated and that's the only letter we should avoid!"