R-Rated Movies

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Vort said:

Obviously not. 

Good. Because history is important. And sometimes it's not G rated with hearts and cuddles at the end. 

Just now, unixknight said:

What about the Passion of the Christ?  Many people have expressed a spiritual gain from it.

Perfect example of context. 

[Vort]

Just now, unixknight said:

What about the Passion of the Christ?  Many people have expressed a spiritual gain from it.

I have heard people claim spiritual gain from fornicating, from watching Marvel comic book films, and from using psychoactive drugs. I don't give much credence to any such claims, including those who insist that watching a man be slowly tortured to death somehow brings the Spirit.

Surely reading scriptures and praying will result in far greater spiritual benefit than watching The Passion of the Christ, and without the spiritual pollution of, you know, watching a man be slowly tortured to death.

[unixknight]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

Obviously not. But watching Steven Spielberg's interpretation of a fictional novel based on general historical events is hardly "learning history". At least, not in any ideal form.

Pornographic movies very carefully and accurately document the types of things shown in pornographic movies. I don't think that makes them worthwhile.

It's unclear to me why you're mentioning porn.  I haven't noticed anybody defending that.

[Vort]

Just now, unixknight said:

It's unclear to me why you're mentioning porn.  I haven't noticed anybody defending that.

The argument advanced was, "Movies with 'objectionable' content can teach history." My points were that (1) there are better and less damaging ways to learn history and (2) some history is not worth learning.

[unixknight]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

I have heard people claim spiritual gain from fornicating, from watching Marvel comic book films, and from using psychoactive drugs. I don't give much credence to any such claims, including those who insist that watching a man be slowly tortured to death somehow brings the Spirit.

Surely reading scriptures and praying will result in far greater spiritual benefit than watching The Passion of the Christ, and without the spiritual pollution of, you know, watching a man be slowly tortured to death.

That's a pretty drastic oversimplification of the film, and does a disservice to people who genuinely found something spiritually resonant in it.  It may not be your cup of tea (I'm personally divided on that movie) but that isn't exactly evidence of the utility of an inconsistent and questionable rating system.

[Grunt]

19 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Yeah I think you're reading that right, but the flaw I see in @Vort and @Carborendum's argument is this:

That argument is based on the idea that the MPAA is simply more permissive, or more tolerant of troubling content but is otherwise consistent.  Therefore, if the modern, permissive MPAA says a movie has rough content, then that must mean the movie is REALLY rough.

I get that, but that isn't the case.

Here's an example to illustrate my point...  Suppose you have two movies.  One is a war flick like Saving Private Ryan, which is rated 'R' for graphic violence and strong language.  The other is a 'G' rated after school special about a high school boy whose dad is getting remarried - to a guy, which is to be celebrated in the film.

Which is more spiritually troubling?  A movie based on a true story (The real life version of Private Ryan was LDS, by the way) about men fighting for their country and to complete a mission of mercy, or a propaganda piece about  normalizing same sex marriage?

In what way does the MPAA help in this decision?

Or maybe it's just possible that doing a little research is the way to go here, rather than blindly going by the MPAA...

I don't think it's a flaw in the argument as much as it is differing standards.  Vort's standards seem to set the bar much lower than you.  If it's an "R", he knows it's not for him.  No need to even waste time with it.  You seem to be more of a "I'm OK with some of this stuff, so let me judge for myself".  

I don't know that one is right or wrong.  I just think you seem to be discussing something you'll never agree on because you're judging it with different standards.  

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

I have heard people claim spiritual gain from fornicating, from watching Marvel comic book films, and from using psychoactive drugs. I don't give much credence to any such claims, including those who insist that watching a man be slowly tortured to death somehow brings the Spirit.

Surely reading scriptures and praying will result in far greater spiritual benefit than watching The Passion of the Christ, and without the spiritual pollution of, you know, watching a man be slowly tortured to death.

Unfortunately just because YOU don't feel the spirit after watching a movie the Passion of the Christ, doesn't mean no one does. 

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4607592/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/man-confesses-murder-after-viewing-passion-christ/#.WwMz7GbMwcg

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/marchweb-only/3-29-21.0.html

I've heard of other stories of people finding Him because of that movie. 

Edited May 21, 2018 by MormonGator

[unixknight]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

The argument advanced was, "Movies with 'objectionable' content can teach history." My points were that (1) there are better and less damaging ways to learn history and (2) some history is not worth learning.

Both of those points are highly subjective.

[JohnsonJones]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

So do you avoid reading/watching/learning about anything in history that might not be G rated? 

My thoughts on the manner, and basically this is just my personal view on the matter (just to be clear on it, so no one thinks I'm trying to judge or say that this is a church position.  This is my personal thoughts, nothing more).

No, but there's a clear difference between reading about something that has happened and visually seeing it.  The difference would be as clear as reading a romance novel full of smut vs. watching pornography that reenacts it vs. actually doing such actions yourself.  The church warns (very stringently) against pornography, but when it boils down to reading material (for example the smutty romance novels which I view pornographic) the normal view is that much of it is something we do not input our personal opinions into on what it actually is, where as it gets more obvious with visual materials and requires more serious thought and actions in regards to church discipline.  When it becomes actual actions, it becomes even more serious.

Putting that into context, it is HIGHLY unlikely one is to get PTSD from reading something about an event, even if it goes into graphic details.  When one views it, it probably is far more likely, but I hope not that likely (as one is removed from it via a movie screen).  It is more likely to cause some sort of emotional impact and even scarring though.  ON the otherhand, actually being in the event is far more likely to cause PTSD in what many of the War Movies cover.

That said, I've never read any history book that actually is graphically violent.  Normally it covers the events, but if it covers graphic wounds and such it normally does it as an explanation of what happened or what happened to an individual, but doesn't cover it in as broad a sense or as massive a scale as a war movie probably could if the director so decided.  It is also normally done in a more scholarly manner (which many probably would find boring) as opposed to the entertainment or sensationalistic details that the entertainment media puts out.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, JohnsonJones said:

My thoughts on the manner, and basically this is just my personal view on the matter (just to be clear on it, so no one thinks I'm trying to judge or say that this is a church position.  This is my personal thoughts, nothing more).

No, but there's a clear difference between reading about something that has happened and visually seeing it.  The difference would be as clear as reading a romance novel full of smut vs. watching pornography that reenacts it vs. actually doing such actions yourself.  The church warns (very stringently) against pornography, but when it boils down to reading material (for example the smutty romance novels which I view pornographic) the normal view is that much of it is something we do not input our personal opinions into on what it actually is, where as it gets more obvious with visual materials and requires more serious thought and actions in regards to church discipline.  When it becomes actual actions, it becomes even more serious.

Putting that into context, it is HIGHLY unlikely one is to get PTSD from reading something about an event, even if it goes into graphic details.  When one views it, it probably is far more likely, but I hope not that likely (as one is removed from it via a movie screen).  It is more likely to cause some sort of emotional impact and even scarring though.  ON the otherhand, actually being in the event is far more likely to cause PTSD in what many of the War Movies cover.

That said, I've never read any history book that actually is graphically violent.  Normally it covers the events, but if it covers graphic wounds and such it normally does it as an explanation of what happened or what happened to an individual, but doesn't cover it in as broad a sense or as massive a scale as a war movie probably could if the director so decided.  It is also normally done in a more scholarly manner (which many probably would find boring) as opposed to the entertainment or sensationalistic details that the entertainment media puts out.

Just to be on the safe side, I think we need to call for the immediate closure of BYUs history department. It's too dangerous to even read about history. 

And the English department. Shakespeare plays can be a little graphic sometimes. 

And the anthropology department. The study of humanities and culture can be R rated sometimes. 

[JohnsonJones]

Just now, MormonGator said:

Just to be on the safe side, I think we need to call for the immediate closure of BYUs history department. It's too dangerous to even read about history. 

And the English department. Shakespeare plays can be a little graphic sometimes. 

And the anthropology department. The study of humanities and culture can be R rated sometimes. 

Funny and humorous, but there are shards of truth to it.

The study of history is not going to typically be graphic.  To take a common example of a book most may be familiar with on this site, even the Bible, at it's most graphic, is not going to be half as harmful reading it as watching someone try to portray it in a graphically sensational manner on screen.

However, at BYU there are some parts of the humanities which ARE screened, sometimes to much outcry.  A few years back (actually, probably longer than that now) there was an art exhibit of Rodin at the Art Museum.  BYU made the decision to censor some of the artwork.  This infuriated many who felt this was not honoring the artist and in many ways was a dishonor of the artists works. 

So, in that way, it was not a complete closure of the department, but it was a closure of some of the materials in a way if you think about it.  Censureship of materials in consideration of various aspects is something that occasionally occurs at BYU. 

Interestingly enough, it also occurs at times at other universities, but normally it is over different things that the universities may find offensive which are different then the things that BYU typically tries to censure.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, JohnsonJones said:

Interestingly enough, it also occurs at times at other universities, but normally it is over different things that the universities may find offensive which are different then the things that BYU typically tries to censure.

 Agree, and that's disturbing. Yes, a private college has every right to censor and forbid whatever they wish (This goes for religious schools like BYU forbidding "offensive" content and secular schools forbidding politically incorrect  content) it's incredibly troubling to me. Both the right and the left can be their own type of obnoxious snowflake.

It's also a bit pointless to censor things. Most times you forbid something you immediately turn it into "forbidden fruit" and make it much more enticing. 

But the art department should be closed too. 

[JohnsonJones]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

 But the art department should be closed too. 

LOL.

There are people who seriously think that though. 

Off-topic.  One of my grandkids just graduated with an art degree this past spring.  Not sure what they are going to do with it.  Hopefully they can find some sort of income, but I don't know what's going to happen thus far.  Of course, my job in it is to be proud of them regardless of what happens, but I am somewhat fearful of what they will be able to do with that degree or if it was worth it.  I hope so.

[Vort]

A prophet counseled American Saints to avoid 'R'-rated movies. He did not get into a philosophical discussion about the merits of the MPAA ratings. He gave wise counsel.

No one will be hurt by avoiding 'R'-rated movies. There is no downside to avoiding them.

I don't understand why a faithful Saint would find fault with those who repeat the prophet's counsel. The only reason I can imagine is self-justification, because someone watches and/or wants to watch 'R'-rated movies and is not willing just to say, "Yes, a prophet counseled against it, but I'm going to do it anyway because I want to."

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

LOL.

There are people who seriously think that though. 

Off-topic.  One of my grandkids just graduated with an art degree this past spring.  Not sure what they are going to do with it.  Hopefully they can find some sort of income, but I don't know what's going to happen thus far.  Of course, my job in it is to be proud of them regardless of what happens, but I am somewhat fearful of what they will be able to do with that degree or if it was worth it.  I hope so.

Congratulations to your grandchild. Any degree takes a lot of work, and the owner of it should be proud. So should their family. I'd suggest that they get into tattooing. (Kidding everyone)

As someone who has a BA in English (also a humanity and a degree that people love to insinuate wasn't worth it) , I can tell you that it was very worth it. I'm super proud of it, and I'm happy I got it. So that's all that matters in the long run. Hope they feel the same way. 

Edited May 21, 2018 by MormonGator

[Grunt]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

I don't understand why a faithful Saint would find fault with those who repeat the prophet's counsel. The only reason I can imagine is self-justification, because someone watches and/or wants to watch 'R'-rated movies and is not willing just to say, "Yes, a prophet counseled against it, but I'm going to do it anyway because I want to."

1

Has this always been the case and I'm just noticing it?  In the last week or so I seem to have been overwhelmed with cases of this.  Maybe I should start a more appropriate thread.

[unixknight]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

A prophet counseled American Saints to avoid 'R'-rated movies. He did not get into a philosophical discussion about the merits of the MPAA ratings. He gave wise counsel.

No one will be hurt by avoiding 'R'-rated movies. There is no downside to avoiding them.

I don't understand why a faithful Saint would find fault with those who repeat the prophet's counsel. The only reason I can imagine is self-justification, because someone watches and/or wants to watch 'R'-rated movies and is not willing just to say, "Yes, a prophet counseled against it, but I'm going to do it anyway because I want to."

An appeal to authority.  That was Ezra Taft Benson in 1986.

Here's an article on what that was about and the context:

http://www.ldsliving.com/R-Rated-Movies-What-Have-the-Prophets-Actually-Said/s/82659

Quote

On some level, it’s surprising that we even rely on rating systems to decide what media is appropriate for us to consume. As explained by Elder Robbins, movies are rated by a Hollywood entity called the Motion Picture Association of America, an organization which has been widely criticized for its inconsistency and skewed values. In fact, Latter-day Saints are usually some of the first to lament Hollywood’s negative influence in the world, so why on earth do we put so much stock in what they have to say?

While the prophets have not given a definitive word on the specific subset of R-rated movies, they’ve been loud and clear about what kind of content should be avoided—and the content of a movie is the same regardless of what letter Hollywood puts on the poster. The MPAA gives out ratings on the basis of “mature” content—and “mature” does not necessarily equal “offensive.” This means that an uplifting, inspiring film could potentially be given a restricted rating for containing realistic depictions of war, while a movie that would be inappropriate by Church standards might slide through with a PG-13.

So rather than fervently clinging to a worldly, rating-based line, might it not be more prudent to simply judge a movie by its content?

So maybe, juuuuuuust maybe, there's another reason besides self justification.

Ascribing motive is usually not a good idea in a friendly discussion, brother.

[Guest MormonGator]

10 minutes ago, Vort said:

A prophet counseled American Saints to avoid 'R'-rated movies. He did not get into a philosophical discussion about the merits of the MPAA ratings. He gave wise counsel.

No one will be hurt by avoiding 'R'-rated movies. There is no downside to avoiding them.

I don't understand why a faithful Saint would find fault with those who repeat the prophet's counsel. The only reason I can imagine is self-justification, because someone watches and/or wants to watch 'R'-rated movies and is not willing just to say, "Yes, a prophet counseled against it, but I'm going to do it anyway because I want to."

Last movie I watched was West Side Story- which is rated G. 

Though it should be rated R because in the song "America"  some of the women wear dresses instead of full burkas. 

Edited May 21, 2018 by MormonGator

[Vort]

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

Has this always been the case and I'm just noticing it?  In the last week or so I seem to have been overwhelmed with cases of this.  Maybe I should start a more appropriate thread.

It has pretty much always been the case. Here is a typical conversation (really very typical, though gratefully not so much in this particular thread):

*****************************

Hey, did you see Saving Private Ryan? What an awesome movie!
No, I didn't.
Why not?! We're going again tomorrow night! Come with us!
No, thanks.
What? Why not?
Actually, I don't watch R-rated movies.
You don't? How come?
Well, because I just decided they aren't good for me to watch.
Why not? That's just ignorant.
Well, Elder Benson gave this talk at BYU where he counseled against it, and I just thought that was good counsel.
Ridiculous! He's just an old guy who doesn't know that times change.
Well...I think what he said makes sense. I don't see the downside to avoiding R-rated movies.
You can't just stick your head in the sand and pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist! This is HISTORY, man! Plus, it's an awesome movie! Very powerful!
Thanks anyway, but I'm not going to see it.
Your loss, dude. You should really not cloister yourself off from reality like that.
Well, I think that following prophetic counsel is good.
SEE? YOU'RE SUCH A JUDGMENTAL JERK! HOW DARE YOU CONDEMN THOSE WHO DON'T FOLLOW ALL YOUR PRECIOUS RULES?! I WATCH R-RATED MOVIES AND I HAVE A TEMPLE RECOMMEND, BUDDY! GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE!

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, unixknight said:

An appeal to authority.  That was Ezra Taft Benson in 1986.

Any quotation of prophetic counsel is an appeal to authority.

5 minutes ago, unixknight said:

So maybe, juuuuuuust maybe, there's another reason besides self justification.

What reason would that be?

5 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Ascribing motive is usually not a good idea in a friendly discussion, brother.

I admitted up front that I did not know the motives. That one was my best guess. If you have another, better motive for why people would find fault with those who try to abide by prophetic counsel, by all means let's hear it.

[Grunt]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

It has pretty much always been the case. Here is a typical conversation (really very typical, though gratefully not so much in this particular thread):

*****************************

Hey, did you see Saving Private Ryan? What an awesome movie!
No, I didn't.
Why not?! We're going again tomorrow night! Come with us!
No, thanks.
What? Why not?
Actually, I don't watch R-rated movies.
You don't? How come?
Well, because I just decided they aren't good for me to watch.
Why not? That's just ignorant.
Well, Elder Benson gave this talk at BYU where he counseled against it, and I just thought that was good counsel.
Ridiculous! He's just an old guy who doesn't know that times change.
Well...I think what he said makes sense. I don't see the downside to avoiding R-rated movies.
You can't just stick your head in the sand and pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist! This is HISTORY, man! Plus, it's an awesome movie! Very powerful!
Thanks anyway, but I'm not going to see it.
Your loss, dude. You should really not cloister yourself off from reality like that.
Well, I think that following prophetic counsel is good.
SEE? YOU'RE SUCH A JUDGMENTAL JERK! HOW DARE YOU CONDEMN THOSE WHO DON'T FOLLOW ALL YOUR PRECIOUS RULES?! I WATCH R-RATED MOVIES AND I HAVE A TEMPLE RECOMMEND, BUDDY! GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE!

I guess I meant not just in relation to movies, but with regard to all things.  There seems to be many threads that are negative or about negative topics that seem supportive of bad behavior. It really just might be me.

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

SEE? YOU'RE SUCH A JUDGMENTAL JERK! HOW DARE YOU CONDEMN THOSE WHO DON'T FOLLOW ALL YOUR PRECIOUS RULES?! I WATCH R-RATED MOVIES AND I HAVE A TEMPLE RECOMMEND, BUDDY! GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE!

For the record, I never called anyone a "judgmental jerk" and I don't have a temple recommend. 😉
 

[Vort]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

For the record, I never called anyone a "judgmental jerk" and I don't have a temple recommend. 😉

I wasn't talking about you, MG, but about many a past conversation, online and in person.

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

I wasn't talking about you, MG, but about many a past conversation, online and in person.

I know. Just playing. You know I have nothing but respect for you. 

Edited May 21, 2018 by MormonGator

[Guest]

1 hour ago, unixknight said:

That's not at all what I'm saying.  I don't even see where you guys are getting that notion, unless your faith in the MPAA is so strong that it carries near scripture level reliability.

Again, I make my movie decisions based on my own efforts to learn what kind of content they contain, which is easy to do with the Internet available.  Thus, the MPAA doesn't need to factor in.

My question for you is:  What is it about the MPAA that you trust so much that you're critical of someone who doesn't use its guidance?

You're not trying to say that, true.

But that is the inevitable result.

Edited May 21, 2018 by Guest