Can watching rated R movies keep you from a temple recommend?

[eddified]

I kind think of it this way, (I made this up now to make a point, don't take it literally).

Telestial: Just don't watch porn.

Terrestial: Don't watch "R"-rated movies or listen to "explicit" music.

Celestial: Seek out wholesome & uplifting entertainment that invites the spirit

The point is, instead of focusing on what *not* to watch, focus on what *to* watch.

 

Disclaimer: I'm a sinner and a hypocrite. As such I fall short, and sometimes watch movies/music I probably shouldn't. 

[omegaseamaster75]

On 4/6/2017 at 8:48 PM, JohnsonJones said:

I don't know if Mormon gator was saying that specifically (yes, what he stated about those who suffered and died, but that would apply to a LOT of movies out there, some of which I'm pretty sure most on these boards have never heard of). 

I think Mormon gator finds things in the movie which they feel is good.  I think Mormon Gator feels there are messages and things in the movies that are noteworthy enough that these messages are things everyone should understand and appreciate.

In that light, and with the greatest respect towards Mormongators opinion, I would hope to expound on my reasons why I might not feel it specifically would apply to me.

A movie may affect different people different ways, so what may be good for you, may not be good for me. We are different and should hold no grudges against each other for our different views and opinions.

 Schindler's list would not be uplifting for me.  I recognize the things Schindler did for the Jewish people, and that for many he was a hero.  He saved up to 1200 Jews.  This is notable.  However, to hold him up simply because of that, while ignoring that his sacrifice was not all that great compared to others, for me, does not make the film something that I NEED to see, especially since I think the message could be portrayed in a way that would NOT make the movie Rated R.  It was an artistic choice, and as art, we have our choices of what we choose to see or not to see.

However, there are other heroes out there, some with movies that could be just as notable, but which most Americans will never see.  Some of these individuals were at the same time as Schindler, but paid a heavy price, sometimes heavier.  One such individual would be Chiune Sugihara who saved between 6000 and 10000 Jews.  For a reward he spent much of the war in a Russian Prisoner Camp, then after being released came home to be dishonorably released from his job for dishonoring the Japanese government for what they called "that dirty Lithuania incident" (where he had disobeyed a direct order and instead issued thousands of visas to try to save as many Jews as possible).  This led to a life of menial labor and poverty.  He lived as a dishonored individual with no acclaim in Japan, and finally moved to the Soviet Union, where he still continued a life of small and menial labor.   It was only in 1968 was finally found by the Jews and then continued his life onwards.  Unlike Schindler who one never could get a straight answer as to why he did what he did, Sugihara actually DID have an answer. 

I would like to note, for the Japanese of that period, HONOR was held to be even more important than status and money.  Sugihara knew that when he says there would be some that would complain (he had been told 3 times NOT to issue the visas, by direct order from Tokyo) his actions would be considered dishonorable.  He was LUCKY Japan lost the war as it could have been an worse than an execution for what he did.  You did not disobey orders from your higher ups in Japan, HONOR is a much bigger deal there than what we see in the West).

There are many notable people in the world and many have done notable things.  Some at great sacrifice.  I do not feel I need to watch a specific movie to know about their accomplishments.  For me, I do not feel Schindler's list is appropriate watching.  That does not mean it is inappropriate for you, it may be the best movie for you.  For me, however, it is not something I choose to watch, anymore than people try to hunt down movies on Sugihara that were made by communist or Israeli governments and feel they should be on everyone's watch list. 

In all, movies are art.  They are artistic.  We all have different forms of art that we may or may not appreciate.  An artform or piece of art which you may feel is the greatest thing for you, may do nothing for me.  In this light, while I may find movies or stories on Sugihara and think that it truly enlightens the sacrifice an individual makes for their fellowman, it may do nothing for another, while they may feel Schindler's list is the greatest movie in that regard, but it will not be a movie that is necessarily for me.

Since you have not seen it or read the book, you have missed to point of the movie, it is not a homage to Schindler (A hero) but also a very flawed individual.  

It is a stark reminder and representation of the Evil that surrounds us in our world. It brings to life that which many would look away from.  It reminds us that Evil must be confronted and sears into our memories the suffering of others so that if we are smart we do not allow history to repeat itself. 

Edited April 10, 2017 by omegaseamaster75

[Maureen]

15 hours ago, eddified said:

...Classical nude statues (just an example) are considered art by our culture, but this does not mean they are wholesome. I don't think God would approve of classical nude statues. Maybe He would, but I personally don't think He would...

I find this thought so strange. Did not God create mankind naked? Babies are born naked. How could God not approve of something he created?

M.

[Jane_Doe]

1 minute ago, Maureen said:

I find this thought so strange. Did not God create mankind naked? Babies are born naked. How could God not approve of something he created?

M.

It depends on how the naked image is used and perceived.  If an image is used to convey a message that is pornagraphic and/or unwholesome, then it is unwholesome.  Likewise if a person perceives it as being pornagraphic / unwholesome, then that image is unwholesome to them (this simply could be because they need a new clean lens).  The verse of using an image to convey something that is of God.

[anatess2]

On 4/6/2017 at 5:12 PM, MormonGator said:

Oh I totally agree with you. The real world is not always a cuddly place. You owe it to the people who suffered and died to watch those movies. 

 

On 4/6/2017 at 8:04 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

No.

 

I'm with TFP on this one.  I don't owe these people anything.  Especially not the Jews.  My grandfather died in that war.  I don't have to watch a specific movie (or read a specific book) to make their lives worth something.  I read The Hiding Place and Boy and his striped Pajamas.  They cover the same topic and are uplifting.

That said... I watched Life - rated R, and then watched it again with the kids.  But, I warned them off of the old Ghostbuster's movie with Sigourney Weaver - PG13.  The kids are teen-agers now.  They go to their friends' houses and I don't control what happens there... so, I'm just hoping that I've taught them enough to keep them out of bad entertainment.

Edited April 10, 2017 by anatess2

[Blackmarch]

23 minutes ago, Maureen said:

I find this thought so strange. Did not God create mankind naked? Babies are born naked. How could God not approve of something he created?

M.

he did. but he also gave them clothes. He also made it so that we reproduced by means of sex yet some of the strongest commandments he's given revolve around its use.

[The Folk Prophet]

48 minutes ago, Maureen said:

I find this thought so strange. Did not God create mankind naked? Babies are born naked. How could God not approve of something he created?

M.

God created Heroin too.

[Maureen]

21 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

God created Heroin too.

God created the Poppy, man created heroin.

@eddified specifically said "classical nude statue" and that is what I was responding to. I personally doubt that God is offended by Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man or Michelangelo's David.

M.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Maureen said:

God created the Poppy, man created heroin.

@eddified specifically said "classical nude statue" and that is what I was responding to. I personally doubt that God is offended by Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man or Michelangelo's David.

M.

Right, but your response is nonsensical. God does approve of nudity -- at the proper time and place. The question isn't whether God approves of nudity, it's about WHEN God approves of it, or, rather, how the poppy is used. If we use nudity as God wills it then it is good. If we do not it is not. The implication was that perhaps classic nudity is not appropriate and has nothing to do with your generic rebuttal.

Edited April 10, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

8 minutes ago, Maureen said:

I personally doubt that God is offended by Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man or Michelangelo's David.

I totally agree.  We talked about Michelangelo's David and also Lacoon and His Sons in my Humanities class at BYU-I.  

[Maureen]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Right, but your response is non-nonsensical.

That's your opinion and it's wrong. ?

M.

[The Folk Prophet]

4 minutes ago, Maureen said:

That's your opinion and it's wrong. ?

M.

Let me be clear: I'm not arguing that classical nudity is offensive to God (I am keeping that view to myself, and don't particularly care that much anyhow). However, to argue that because children are born nude, therefore classic nudity is acceptable is nonsensical. Because it actually doesn't make sense. The existence/reality of something doesn't prove that it's acceptable.

I don't care much if someone thinks it is or is not acceptable, as I've said, but if someone's going to make an argument one way or the other, it really ought to make sense.

Edited April 10, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Maureen]

4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Let me be clear: I'm not arguing that classical nudity is offensive to God (I am keeping that view to myself, and don't particularly care that much anyhow). However, to argue that because children are born nude, therefore classic nudity is acceptable is nonsensical. Because it actually doesn't make sense. The existence/reality of something doesn't prove that it's acceptable.... 

My argument was not that classical nudity is acceptable; my argument is that I doubt very much that God is offended by it.

M.

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Maureen said:

My argument was not that classical nudity is acceptable; my argument is that I doubt very much that God is offended by it.

M.

Hmm. Not sure I see the difference.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

But, I warned them off of the old Ghostbuster's movie with Sigourney Weaver - PG13. 

It was PG.  But I'm really curious what you saw that made you warn the kids off of it.  But then, I guess I didn't have the most "proper" upbringing when it came to movies.  We watched "Aliens" and "Robocop" for FHE.  I've chosen not to do that with my kids.

Edited April 10, 2017 by Guest

[anatess2]

21 hours ago, Carborendum said:

It was PG.  But I'm really curious what you saw that made you warn the kids off of it.  But then, I guess I didn't have the most "proper" upbringing when it came to movies.  We watched "Aliens" and "Robocop" for FHE.  I've chosen not to do that with my kids.

Okay, I might have the title wrong - there were a few of those.  It's the one where Sigourney Weaver became the she-devil and Rick Moranis became her slave-dog-monster thing.  The "funny lines" in that movie is American Pie-ish (disclaimer:  I haven't seen American Pie).

Edited April 11, 2017 by anatess2

[anatess2]

22 hours ago, Maureen said:

My argument was not that classical nudity is acceptable; my argument is that I doubt very much that God is offended by it.

M.

I understand what you're saying here but I just have this auto-cringe reaction when someone speaks for God that doesn't have the prophetic keys.

Anyway, are we really still having confusion on the difference between art and pornography?  I doubt very much that @The Folk Prophet , as smart as he is, doesn't know the difference.

But the term "acceptable", especially in topics such as art - is not decided by the artist or the intended purpose of the artwork.  Acceptability of art is decided by the state of the society.  Art is interpretative.  Have you seen modern art lately?  I find it sad that I cannot distinguish from a lot of today's modern art and garbage.  Yes, some artist decided to gold-plate his poop, called it art and sold the set for half a million dollars.  Gilded or not, it's still stinky garbage.  And, of course, there's the $28M Untitled Rothko and the $45M Riot Wool.  I look at it and see... rich suckers.  Of course, the art defenders always slap you with the... "You're so uncultured!".  Hah hah... whatever.  I look at modern art today and see a society that has gone to the gutter.  It doesn't surprise me then that today's society elders look at the Vitruvian Man and declares it erotic and bans it from public viewing anticipating a society in the gutter that would see it as such.

Anyway, this painting titled Riot by Wool sold for $45M to some rich sucker:

 

Edited April 11, 2017 by anatess2

[The Folk Prophet]

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Anyway, are we really still having confusion on the difference between art and pornography?  I doubt very much that @The Folk Prophet , as smart as he is, doesn't know the difference.

It's simple. You create some pornography, let it sit around for several hundred years and...boom...art!

[Guest]

I sold all of my R rated movies to FYE. The only R rated movie in my house is owned by my non member dad Patriots Day. I have dvds of the first 2 seasons of an adult swim show called Rick and Morty that's uncensored with profanity and I'm thinking of selling those too just to clean the filth media from my house.