Filthy Lucre

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

28 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Do you mean this:

If so...well...first, thanks for not bothering to re-quote it as I asked so I'm still not entirely sure...and second, this doesn't explain what you mean so much as add a "no offense intended" to the insult. It's basically saying that what I read was exactly what I think it means, and you added a "I'm not judging you though" to try and soften it after the fact. Well...okay. That being said, I will grant that I was looking for an explanation for it between you and me and did not look "upthread" to the discussion with Vort, and though I did read through that, did not remember this specific thing. So I apologize.

Of course I can see that. How long will you justify being rude to me because of my imperfections then? I know I come across as rude. I have never, nor will I ever, justify it because "the other person started it", though I will admit that to be the reason sometimes. That never makes me right. When I am intentionally rude and sarcastic and get a sense of it I always back off and apologize. I don't always get a sense of it, I know that. And sometimes people see my comments as rude when they are not meant to be. But I never* hold onto it just because of the other person's weaknesses. And everything that's ever happened in the past shouldn't have any bearing on how we act. If you're rude to me I expect better. And I expect you and everyone to expect the same of me.

 

*Edit: insert "intentionally".

I mean the whole conversation I had with Vort including the part you quoted, yes. Fine, I'll explain from the beginning . . . 

I have a different perspective than you or Vort.  I shared that perspective thinking that I was just adding to the discussion....like we do on this forum every day.  We discuss things, we disagree, then we move on to the next topic to discuss or disagree.  I was quite surprised by Vort's comment.  At first I couldn't understand why he was turning what I thought was just another friendly discussion into an argument (i.e. why did he feel the need to be so rude?)    He said everyone was piling on you.  I explained that I was simply responding to you because you had commented on my post.  Would he prefer that I ignore you?  He ignored that, and then brought up the disagreement with Ironhold.  I pointed out to him that all I did was share the quotes...which could be seen to either back up you or Ironhold...I intentionally stayed neutral on that.

I mirrored Vort's word back to him because I felt he was being rude to me for no reason.  THEN I thought about it and considered that perhaps there was some misunderstanding because of our previous interactions, so I told him that.  That was the closest thing you are going to get to an apology because I truly don't believe I have done anything wrong here.  I was treated rudely, I tried to give Vort the benefit of the doubt...and it seemed to resolve nothing.

Then you come along and reopen the discussion, and proceed to insult me as well.  And ask me to apologize.  Apologize for what?  For not letting you two walk all over me or cow me into being quiet?  This whole conversation with Vort and now with you, I have been on the defensive, I'm not the one that went on the attack.  

So no I will not apologize for defending myself or for having a different opinion. 

Edited February 29, 2016 by LiterateParakeet

[The Folk Prophet]

14 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

So no I will not apologize for defending myself or for having a different opinion. 

Except your defending of yourself ended up including me...and I had nothing to do with Vort's "attack" on you.

13 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

That was the closest thing you are going to get to an apology because I truly don't believe I have done anything wrong here.

I can accept that you didn't mean anything by it. But refusing to apologize when you've hurt feelings even unintentionally...?? Well, that's your prerogative? Even not meaning to, I would expect that it would be obvious why it was considered rude -- especially when pointed out -- and thereby I'm not entirely sure why a simple "I'm sorry, didn't mean it that way" is such a tough response when it's called unfair. That would have ended it too. I guess this hours of back and forth and getting all riled up and frustrated was the better way. 

18 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Then you come along and reopen the discussion

I really wasn't hoping for the hours of debate. What I wanted, honestly, was, "You're right. That was a bit unfair." Boom. Over and done with. That was my expectation (though, in retrospect, and based on our history, I suppose I was fooling myself -- but I had just finished saying how I saw and even agreed somewhat with your other points. I guess that had me blinded a bit.)

21 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

and proceed to insult me as well.

Um...(.....perusing thread....)..............(...hmm. Maybe it was the "...well, kinda....duh" part...didn't mean that as directly insulting. Just a bit flippant to the point that we all think other's are wrong when we disagree with them...)...........still)...um....

Okay...having looked back over the thread and having made my best guess at what you considered insulting, I apologize for my flippant tone and for the fact that it may have come across like I was calling you stupid or something.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

8 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

11 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Okay...having looked back over the thread and having made my best guess at what you considered insulting, I apologize for my flippant tone and for the fact that it may have come across like I was calling you stupid or something.

 

 

Thank you for your apology.  I am sorry you felt attacked by me that was never my intention.  

 

[Ironhold]

2 hours ago, Jojo Bags said:

This one is simple.  The counsel of the brethren is never go to an R-rated movie.  That is all you need to write in your column.

I live in Central Texas. 

Do you really think that people would buy that as a response? 

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Ironhold said:

I live in Central Texas. 

Do you really think that people would buy that as a response? 

Clearly, it would not work as a response. A wine critic cannot write in his column, "We shouldn't drink wine." As long as you are a movie critic, you will have to watch many movies, and I don't see how you can avoid watching 'R'-rated movies as a part of that.

Some of us look at it in this way: What if we had to watch NC-17 movies as a part of that job? Would we keep on the job and just wade through the porn flicks as best we could, hoping that none of the filth would rub off onto our psyches? Or would we decide it's time for a career change? And if the latter, do we do the same for a "hard" R movie? What if it has a lot of really, extremely explicit sex scenes, but they are between married people? (Married to each other, that is.) Would it make a difference if the actors were married to each other in real life? What if you didn't actually see any genitalia? What if it just looked like real sex, but you had reason to believe it was just fake? What if the sex is played for laughs instead of in a tittilating manner? What if the sex is not really realistic, so you can just write it off as an unrealistic absurdity? If you find the sex repulsive enough, does that sort of counteract the evil of exposing yourself to it?

To some people (myself included), the above reflections are much like asking yourself which sorts of dog poop are appropriate to eat. Well, not appropriate, of course, because technically speaking, eating dog poop  isn't exactly "appropriate", but how much dog poop ingestion can we reasonably get away with before others can smell it on our breath?

I am not advising you to change your career, as I might do if e.g. you were a wine taster. But I do think the issue should be met head-on. How much is the counsel that we avoid R-rated movies worth? Does it represent the mind of God? If so, what are we to do?

I say this not to argue the point or even to try to convince you, but to explain why some of us are asking the question, at least in a philosophical sense.

[Jojo Bags]

26 minutes ago, Vort said:

Clearly, it would not work as a response. A wine critic cannot write in his column, "We shouldn't drink wine." As long as you are a movie critic, you will have to watch many movies, and I don't see how you can avoid watching 'R'-rated movies as a part of that.

Some of us look at it in this way: What if we had to watch NC-17 movies as a part of that job? Would we keep on the job and just wade through the porn flicks as best we could, hoping that none of the filth would rub off onto our psyches? Or would we decide it's time for a career change? And if the latter, do we do the same for a "hard" R movie? What if it has a lot of really, extremely explicit sex scenes, but they are between married people? (Married to each other, that is.) Would it make a difference if the actors were married to each other in real life? What if you didn't actually see any genitalia? What if it just looked like real sex, but you had reason to believe it was just fake? What if the sex is played for laughs instead of in a tittilating manner? What if the sex is not really realistic, so you can just write it off as an unrealistic absurdity? If you find the sex repulsive enough, does that sort of counteract the evil of exposing yourself to it?

To some people (myself included), the above reflections are much like asking yourself which sorts of dog poop are appropriate to eat. Well, not appropriate, of course, because technically speaking, eating dog poop  isn't exactly "appropriate", but how much dog poop ingestion can we reasonably get away with before others can smell it on our breath?

I am not advising you to change your career, as I might do if e.g. you were a wine taster. But I do think the issue should be met head-on. How much is the counsel that we avoid R-rated movies worth? Does it represent the mind of God? If so, what are we to do?

I say this not to argue the point or even to try to convince you, but to explain why some of us are asking the question, at least in a philosophical sense.

Well said.  I would say one other thing regarding the counsel of the brethren.  As for  representing "the mind of God," we uphold (or we are supposed to) the Quorum of the Twelve as "prophets, seers, and revelators."  And it also says in D&C 1:28, "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."  There is no doubt in my mind that drinking or tasting wine is against the WoW even if it is your "job," and there is absolutely no doubt that watching R-rated movies is even worse.  Going to an R-rated movie, or any other movie for that matter, that shows any form of sex scenes, no matter how tame, is supporting an immoral industry and no matter how immune you might think you are, it will still affect your spirituality.  As for the job, I would change it.  We are to stand up for truth and righteousness at all times and in all things, and in all places, including our place of employment.

[Ironhold]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Clearly, it would not work as a response. A wine critic cannot write in his column, "We shouldn't drink wine." As long as you are a movie critic, you will have to watch many movies, and I don't see how you can avoid watching 'R'-rated movies as a part of that.

Some of us look at it in this way: What if we had to watch NC-17 movies as a part of that job? Would we keep on the job and just wade through the porn flicks as best we could, hoping that none of the filth would rub off onto our psyches? Or would we decide it's time for a career change? And if the latter, do we do the same for a "hard" R movie? What if it has a lot of really, extremely explicit sex scenes, but they are between married people? (Married to each other, that is.) Would it make a difference if the actors were married to each other in real life? What if you didn't actually see any genitalia? What if it just looked like real sex, but you had reason to believe it was just fake? What if the sex is played for laughs instead of in a tittilating manner? What if the sex is not really realistic, so you can just write it off as an unrealistic absurdity? If you find the sex repulsive enough, does that sort of counteract the evil of exposing yourself to it?

To some people (myself included), the above reflections are much like asking yourself which sorts of dog poop are appropriate to eat. Well, not appropriate, of course, because technically speaking, eating dog poop  isn't exactly "appropriate", but how much dog poop ingestion can we reasonably get away with before others can smell it on our breath?

I am not advising you to change your career, as I might do if e.g. you were a wine taster. But I do think the issue should be met head-on. How much is the counsel that we avoid R-rated movies worth? Does it represent the mind of God? If so, what are we to do?

I say this not to argue the point or even to try to convince you, but to explain why some of us are asking the question, at least in a philosophical sense.

One luxury I have is that I'm only obligated to do one film a week. This means that I can choose the lesser of the evils if the films that week aren't any good. 

As far as the contents of the films themselves go, suffice to say that the high school I went to was comparable to Thunder Dome thanks to a head principal who didn't care about anything beyond his own career. As such, much of what I'm seeing in the movies is pretty meh by comparison. 

[Guest]

Ironhold,

I hear what your saying about your job.  But at some point, you've got to ask yourself if this is a job that is befitting a Latter-day Saint.  And I believe that's between you and the Lord.  But if the answer comes to you as "NO", would you quit?

Maybe you're being given very specific instructions to walk the line.  But it is still a dangerous path you've chosen.

[omegaseamaster75]

On 2/27/2016 at 4:46 PM, Vort said:

omega, I see three possible reasons why you might honestly claim that my questions constitute a strawman argument:

1. You do not know what a strawman argument is.
2. You do know what a strawman argument is, but you have muddled thinking in this case (perhaps emotion, perhaps something else) that causes you to misperceive this as a strawman argument.
3. You are somehow misunderstand the nature of my argument, such that it appears to you to be a strawman.

So instead of trying to analyze which of these might be the case, please just answer TFP's questions. Equivalently, please explain very carefully which aspects of my questions constitute a strawman characterization.

You created a fallacy to try to prove your point. Point of fact Jesus would never own a restaurant, or a marijuana dispensary. 

[omegaseamaster75]

On 2/27/2016 at 4:49 PM, Vort said:

He did indeed. If he lived today (as my question stipulated), do you believe he would drink wine in defiance of his own revelation to Joseph Smith?

The real answer is that we don't know if he would drink wine or not. The WOW how we currently practice it is a matter of policy not doctrine.

[Guest MormonGator]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Ironhold,

I hear what your saying about your job.  But at some point, you've got to ask yourself if this is a job that is befitting a Latter-day Saint.  And I believe that's between you and the Lord.  But if the answer comes to you as "NO", would you quit?

 

I agree with this Carb, though I am concerned about how he feeds his family. It's easy for us to say "How dare a latter day saint do this job!" when we don't pay his bills.  I'm not sure his wife and kids would appreciate his newly found moral righteousness if they are hungry and freezing. 

[omegaseamaster75]

10 hours ago, Vort said:

Clearly, it would not work as a response. A wine critic cannot write in his column, "We shouldn't drink wine." As long as you are a movie critic, you will have to watch many movies, and I don't see how you can avoid watching 'R'-rated movies as a part of that.

Some of us look at it in this way: What if we had to watch NC-17 movies as a part of that job? Would we keep on the job and just wade through the porn flicks as best we could, hoping that none of the filth would rub off onto our psyches? Or would we decide it's time for a career change? And if the latter, do we do the same for a "hard" R movie? What if it has a lot of really, extremely explicit sex scenes, but they are between married people? (Married to each other, that is.) Would it make a difference if the actors were married to each other in real life? What if you didn't actually see any genitalia? What if it just looked like real sex, but you had reason to believe it was just fake? What if the sex is played for laughs instead of in a tittilating manner? What if the sex is not really realistic, so you can just write it off as an unrealistic absurdity? If you find the sex repulsive enough, does that sort of counteract the evil of exposing yourself to it?

To some people (myself included), the above reflections are much like asking yourself which sorts of dog poop are appropriate to eat. Well, not appropriate, of course, because technically speaking, eating dog poop  isn't exactly "appropriate", but how much dog poop ingestion can we reasonably get away with before others can smell it on our breath?

I am not advising you to change your career, as I might do if e.g. you were a wine taster. But I do think the issue should be met head-on. How much is the counsel that we avoid R-rated movies worth? Does it represent the mind of God? If so, what are we to do?

I say this not to argue the point or even to try to convince you, but to explain why some of us are asking the question, at least in a philosophical sense.

A couple of points and I haven't read past this. 

1. NC-17 is not porn. There are many reasons for a movie to be rated NC 17, also sex in NC 17 movies is faked. 

2. I will quote your second paragraph "and if the latter, do we do the same for a "hard" R movie? What if it has a lot of really, extremely explicit sex scenes, but they are between married people? (Married to each other, that is.) Would it make a difference if the actors were married to each other in real life? What if you didn't actually see any genitalia? What if it just looked like real sex, but you had reason to believe it was just fake? What if the sex is played for laughs instead of in a tittilating manner? What if the sex is not really realistic, so you can just write it off as an unrealistic absurdity? If you find the sex repulsive enough, does that sort of counteract the evil of exposing yourself to it?"

You do know that the sex in R rated movies is fake right? as in they are not having "real"sex at all...ever.

 

Disclaimer: I in no way advocate the viewing of nc-17 or rated R movies.

[Traveler]

Often I struggle getting through a day without having to repent about something.  I am thinking that reading this thread is not really helpful.  It is sad what many of us do - for money - thinking that we benefit G-d, further the cause of Zion or exalt our fellow man.  Does anyone understand the covenant associated with the "Law of Consecration"?  We are all called upon to do things for money that we cannot justify - but can we at least agree that we all need to have an attitude of repentance?  Not for what others are doing but for what we are doing.  I was once involved in automating a cigarette factory - I asked not be be assigned the project - I disliked being at the place and I often prayed for relief or a way out.  I could have quit - but did not - I can make excuses but I am still conflicted about my work for that company.  I can only hope that G-d will somehow not hold me accountable but blame someone else?  I wish I was a better example. I wish I could condemn others and not fell guilty for what I have done.  Sometimes we get dealt a bad hand.  As a friend of mine once said - life is a game you cannot win, you cannot break even and you cannot get out of the game.  It really sucks coming to earth as a fallen son or daughter of G-d,  Perhaps this is in part why Lucifer was able to draw a third part of heaven to avoid having to suffer the fall.

 

The Traveler

Edited February 29, 2016 by Traveler

[Guest]

48 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I agree with this Carb, though I am concerned about how he feeds his family. It's easy for us to say "How dare a latter day saint do this job!" when we don't pay his bills.  I'm not sure his wife and kids would appreciate his newly found moral righteousness if they are hungry and freezing. 

Gator,

I hope you realize that this is not a reasonable argument.  If I had very little education and very few natural talents or skills, could I justify being a porn star so I could feed my family?  True, this is an extreme example.  But I had to get the point across.

Remember my question was that IF he received a prompting from the Lord that he really ought to quit and get a different job, then the answer really SHOULD be "of course I'd quit and trust in the Lord that He would provide a way to support my family."  I find it disturbing that you believe food is justification to disobey the Lord.  

Imagine if Lehi decided, no I can't leave Jerusalem.  I won't be able to feed my family in the wilderness.  So they'll be complaining so much that I just can't obey the Lord.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Ironhold,

I hear what your saying about your job.  But at some point, you've got to ask yourself if this is a job that is befitting a Latter-day Saint.  And I believe that's between you and the Lord.  But if the answer comes to you as "NO", would you quit?

Maybe you're being given very specific instructions to walk the line.  But it is still a dangerous path you've chosen.

Keep in mind that his Branch President is aware of his job and what it entails. It's the Branch President's stewardship to suggest he look for another job or not...not ours. It doesn't appear that he has made that suggestion.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Keep in mind that his Branch President is aware of his job and what it entails. It's the Branch President's stewardship to suggest he look for another job or not...not ours. It doesn't appear that he has made that suggestion.

I didn't suggest it.  I specifically said "That's between you and the Lord."   I don't know how I could have made that any clearer.

My question was simply one to promote introspection.  If he did receive an answer from the Lord telling him to quit, would he follow it?  

He seems to have indicated that he has not yet received any prompting from the Lord to change his path in this regard.  But is it because the Lord knows he won't obey anyway?(something along the lines of the Samuel principle?)  There is the question of where his heart is which I am NOT attempting to judge at this time.  

So, I ask the question: Would he be willing to give it up if he had a clear prompting that the Lord disapproved?  If he is truly willing to do so, then I believe his heart is in the right place.  Then he's on the same footing as the poor who give not because they have not, but if they had they would give.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Guest

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

@Carborendum That font looks so big on my phone that I'm not going to quote it. If caps are yelling, then....well, you seem to have taken offense at my comment. 

Let me clarify....no offense was intended. I was not calling you out. I was just adding to the conversation as we all are.

Or in other words, my intent was to promote introspection on the part of others just as you were doing for Ironhold.

 

Edited February 29, 2016 by LiterateParakeet

[Guest]

No, I wasn't trying to yell.  I was "announcing".  I believe we're on the same page.  But your comments seemed to dismiss the disclaimer that I specifically placed there so that people would understand that I was not telling him to change his job.  That was between him and the Lord.  

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

11 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

No, I wasn't trying to yell.  I was "announcing".  I believe we're on the same page.  But your comments seemed to dismiss the disclaimer that I specifically placed there so that people would understand that I was not telling him to change his job.  That was between him and the Lord.  

"Seemed" being the operative word here. Since this is a public conversation, my comments were for all.

[Guest MormonGator]

39 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Gator,

I hope you realize that this is not a reasonable argument.

See that's the issue with the internet. Not everything is an argument or a debate. Sometimes, it's just trying to show how someone could think a different way. 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

See that's the issue with the internet. Not everything is an argument or a debate. Sometimes, it's just trying to show how someone could think a different way. 

I think you are using a different definition of "argument".  I understand you were simply trying to invoke some sympathy for a very difficult decision that one would have to make in such a situation.  But I'm not one to believe that in this case, the emotional aspect should govern that decision.  Again I'd invoke Jane Eyre.

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

"Seemed" being the operative word here. Since this is a public conversation, my comments were for all.

Yes, "seemed".  Yes, it is an open forum.  Sorry.

[Guest MormonGator]

13 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I think you are using a different definition of "argument".  I understand you were simply trying to invoke some sympathy for a very difficult decision that one would have to make in such a situation.  But I'm not one to believe that in this case, the emotional aspect should govern that decision.  Again I'd invoke Jane Eyre.

I'd invoke Billy Budd. Seriously, am I the only one who still likes Herman Melville??

Edited February 29, 2016 by MormonGator

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Thanks Carb.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I'd invoke Billy Budd.  Seriously, am I the only one who still likes Herman Melville??

Which part would you be referring to?  And, yes. (kidding).  I personally never grew fond of him.  But I thought that Kahn expertly used his lines to add to an already fantastic script.

My Jane Eyre quote that I think about all the time is this.

Quote

I will keep the law given by God; sanctioned by man. I will hold to the principles received by me when I was sane, and not mad—as I am now. Laws and principles are not for the times when there is no temptation: they are for such moments as this, when body and soul rise in mutiny against their rigour; stringent are they; inviolate they shall be. If at my individual convenience I might break them, what would be their worth? They have a worth—so I have always believed; and if I cannot believe it now, it is because I am insane—quite insane: with my veins running fire, and my heart beating faster than I can count its throbs. Preconceived opinions, foregone determinations, are all I have at this hour to stand by: there I plant my foot. (3.1.122)

 

Edited February 29, 2016 by Guest