The Folk Prophet

Separating from entertainment -- has the time fully come

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Only a fool wouldn't have some level of fear at a wolf.

Depends on the wolf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Godless said:

Same sex couples exist in our society.  That's a reality of the world we live in, and has been for far longer than Hollywood has been willing to put them on screen. You may not approve of their lifestyle, but your boycotts aren't going to erase them from existance. Your daughter is going to learn of their existence one day. My son already has, and not because of a Disney movie. One of his friends in Kindergarten had "two moms". He was confused about it. We explained that some kids have two moms or two dads intead of a mom and dad. He said "Oh, okay" and it never came up again. 

I just wanted to add that just because something happens as a part of reality does not mean that it is desirable or something we recognize as proper or something to be accepted.   This is the reason we have laws - to prevent things from happening that should not happen.  And as strange as it may seem the more society attempts to mitigate behaviors that do not strengthen society the more vulnerable and prone to failure the society will evolve.

For example, the single purpose of freedom of speech is to strengthen society.  This is done in open forum through opposition.  Thus as opinion is expressed we can determine not just that which may apply to us as individuals but that which applies to society.  Joseph Goebbels demonstrated that by creating a uneven playing field that public opinion could be skewed even to its own detriment. 

When someone claims that they are controlled and prevented from "intelligent" choice - it is a red flag to me and I oppose it, if for nothing else but for the reason that G-d has given us the power of agency.  Through science we have learned that the human brain is not fully developed until about the age of 25 and the last function to develop is the executive decision making.  In short this means that until someone reaches the age of 25 they need protection.  There should be a PG-25 rating.  It seems that insurance companies (and perhaps car rental companies) are the only institutions that understand this principle.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Mores said:

Depends on the wolf.

I think that perhaps there is more to the intended symbolism.  In scripture the symbolism of a wolf is usually related to sheep.  Within this context the sheep that attempt any relationship with a wolf - are not wise.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I think that perhaps there is more to the intended symbolism.  In scripture the symbolism of a wolf is usually related to sheep.  Within this context the sheep that attempt any relationship with a wolf - are not wise.

You're right.  Alma and Amulek should never have spoken with Zeezrom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Depends on the meaning of "fear".

And... Hello, Bill Clinton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

@Godless's point about loving our neighbors is important.

@Godless's point was that we cannot love our neighbor without knowing them -- and logically therefore we must watch movies about them so we can know them. 

I would challenge that on every level as absolutely false.


I must know Christ, and through the Holy Spirit I will thereby be guided. I do not need to get to know every type of individual that has ever lived through personal experience. Nor is is possible for me to do so.

I don't need to really know anyone fully to love them. Nor do I need to fully understand them. Nor can I really know or really understand anyone. But Christ can and does. The idea that a movie will help me in this regard is so ridiculous it's almost laughable. Through the power of the atonement Christ is the only one who actually knows everyone -- and it is through Him that we may actually gain empathy on any level where we cannot otherwise.

Loving someone is primarily about concern for their well being -- and that really means concerned for their eternal welfare -- it doesn't actually require understanding their individual tastes that differ entirely from yours. If someone just loves math and I, decidedly, do not, it doesn't mean I have to go watch a movie about people who do math to love them. If I love motorcycles and someone else does not they do not need to go watch a movie about motorcycles to love me. If someone is sexually attracted to others of their same sex I do not need to go watch a gay movie to love them.  I cannot even begin to describe how obvious and silly that is. People who claim such things are lying to justify going to watch movies that they should not be watching. They want to watch those movies because they are pleasing to the carnal mind, not because they are pleasing to God.

Getting to know someone so that you can influence them regarding their eternal welfare is, indeed, oft times important, but seeing a movie with a gay couple in it with my kids has no relationship to this at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mores said:

And... Hello, Bill Clinton.

Don't be ridiculous. It's like you don't actually care to communicate on this.

The scriptures consistently warn us to be wary -- and often use wolves as an example of this. They also teach us to both fear God and to not be afraid. So clearly the idea has different meanings depending on its usage.

Fear, by definition can mean alter somewhat in meaning. It doesn't have to mean trembling in your boots worried you're pending doom is immediately upon you.

Merriam Webster, for example, offers 4 nouns definitions:

1 a: an unpleasant often strong emotion caused by anticipation or awareness of danger

   b (1): an instance of this emotion

      (2): a state marked by this emotion

2: anxious concern : SOLICITUDE

3: profound reverence and awe especially toward God

4: reason for alarm : DANGER

 

Meaning #2 (Solicitude -- or in other words...be wary) is decidedly different from meaning #1. Some are reacting as if I meant #1. I did not. I meant #2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Godless said:

PC is right, you can't be "in the world but not of it" if you hide yourself and your family from the realities of the world you live in.

Who cares? The idea that we are "in the world" is a statement of fact, not a commandment. We cannot escape the world. But we are commanded to flee Babylon. I can't think of anything more Babylonian than Hollywood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Don't be ridiculous. It's like you don't actually care to communicate on this.

The scriptures consistently warn us to be wary -- and often use wolves as an example of this. They also teach us to both fear God and to not be afraid. So clearly the idea has different meanings depending on its usage.

Fear, by definition can mean alter somewhat in meaning. It doesn't have to mean trembling in your boots worried you're pending doom is immediately upon you.

Merriam Webster, for example, offers 4 nouns definitions:

1 a: an unpleasant often strong emotion caused by anticipation or awareness of danger

   b (1): an instance of this emotion

      (2): a state marked by this emotion

2: anxious concern : SOLICITUDE

3: profound reverence and awe especially toward God

4: reason for alarm : DANGER

 

Meaning #2 (Solicitude -- or in other words...be wary) is decidedly different from meaning #1. Some are reacting as if I meant #1. I did not. I meant #2.

Or more likely #4. Most of us don't have anxious concern and solicitude for the ravening wolves seeking to devour us or our flock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Vort said:

Who cares? The idea that we are "in the world" is a statement of fact, not a commandment. We cannot escape the world. But we are commanded to flee Babylon. I can't think of anything more Babylonian than Hollywood.

A careful study of https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/john/17?lang=eng might help people understand this better. The phase that we should be "in the world but not of the world" is derived from John 17. That phrase is not actually in the scripture. What does it actually say?

6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.

9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be bone, as we are.

12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.

14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.

16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.

It's fairly plain that a good part of the meaning of "in the world" is literal. We are in the world because we are, literally, in the word. We're mortal, living on the earth. It has absolutely nothing to do with joining in with, as you say, Babylon.

Additionally, we read in Romans 12:2

2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

And 1 John 2:15-16

15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the clove of the Father is not in him.

16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

And James 4:4

4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

And then D&C 53:2

2 Behold, I, the Lord, who was crucified for the sins of the world, give unto you a commandment that you shall forsake the world.

For @prisonchaplain's sake, this idea is echoed in 2 Corinthians 6:17

17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you

There are more scriptures like this. But I think these make the point.

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I gather, the scene is a background one where two women drop off a child at school.  

I think where I’d draw the line, is when something is unambiguously presented in a way that would cause uncomfortable questions.  In this case—it sounds like, although the creators had a specific intent, a viewer could easily interpret it as a scene with a child and two aunts, or a mom and a big sister, or something like that.  I don’t think this will be the movie that makes me break from Disney-Pixar . . . But I do think such a movie is probably coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

From what I gather, the scene is a background one where two women drop off a child at school.  

I think where I’d draw the line, is when something is unambiguously presented in a way that would cause uncomfortable questions.  In this case—it sounds like, although the creators had a specific intent, a viewer could easily interpret it as a scene with a child and two aunts, or a mom and a big sister, or something like that.  I don’t think this will be the movie that makes me break from Disney-Pixar . . . But I do think such a movie is probably coming.

I can respect this thinking. I have to wonder though, for myself, if the break ought to not happen sooner.

A lot of people blew off the Beauty and the Beast "gay" scene as no big deal. Anecdotally, my sister told me that when they went to it (unawares) that afterward they did, indeed, get that awkward question moment from their exceptionally bright child.

Of course these moments are, thus far, ambiguous enough that we can still lie our way out of them. ("They were just being silly." or "One of them was her aunt".) But we're lying, because we darned well know that isn't true. ;)

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Vort said:

We treat entertainment as if it's sacred. It is not.

 

17 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Suddenly I feel like an idolator.

One of my favorite words in Ukrainian is `rozvaha` (transliterated). The base word is `vaha`, which can be translated as "attention," or "focus." The `roz` prefix is like a preposition, and serves to indicate scattering, or moving in different directions.  `rozvaha` isn't quite "distraction," because a distraction takes your attention away in one direction. `rozvaha` evokes a sense of your attention being pulled in many different directions--instead of your focus being drawn to the wrong thing, it's being pulled away from the thing and toward all of the other things.

`rozvaha` is the Ukrainian word for `entertainment`

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to say that I'm giving up on monitoring what my children consume in entertainment, because I'm certainly not.  I'm definitely take measures to ensure they are not exposed to sexual themes and images, violent content (excluding Minecraft violence), and offensive language. 

But the portrayal of LGBTQ characters or family structures is not a hill I'm willing to die on. Largely because that isn't where my children are being exposed to those family structures. In the past couple of years, we've been involved in a softball team coached by a lesbian couple. My daughter and their daughter became friends. One of the children in our Karate program is a daughter of a lesbian couple. And we live in rural freaking Kentucky! 

Since about the ages of 8 and 5, my children have been in friendships that are directly tied to same-sex couples. Exposure from television and movies just isn't an issue--they're already living with it. And I dare say they are handling it a lot better than the adults seem to be*. 

 

 

* Unrelated, the season after my daughter was first coached by this particular woman, my daughter moved up an age group, while her friend and coach stayed behind. That season, nearly a third of the woman's team suddenly quit about two practices into the new season because parents didn't want their precious daughters "exposed to the lesbian." I was angry for weeks. Fortunately, it didn't  happen in subsequent seasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mores said:

You're right.  Alma and Amulek should never have spoken with Zeezrom.

I am honestly trying to understand why you would think that someone under covenant and commandment of G-d are most appropriately symbolized as sheep.  I would consider such more symbolically related to shepherds whose purpose it is to protect the sheep from the wolves.   But so I can more clearly understand your specific intent - are you of the mind that Saints of G-d ought to seek out evil to confront it?

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

I'm not going to say that I'm giving up on monitoring what my children consume in entertainment, because I'm certainly not.  I'm definitely take measures to ensure they are not exposed to sexual themes and images, violent content (excluding Minecraft violence), and offensive language. 

But the portrayal of LGBTQ characters or family structures is not a hill I'm willing to die on. Largely because that isn't where my children are being exposed to those family structures. In the past couple of years, we've been involved in a softball team coached by a lesbian couple. My daughter and their daughter became friends. One of the children in our Karate program is a daughter of a lesbian couple. And we live in rural freaking Kentucky! 

Since about the ages of 8 and 5, my children have been in friendships that are directly tied to same-sex couples. Exposure from television and movies just isn't an issue--they're already living with it. And I dare say they are handling it a lot better than the adults seem to be*. 

 

 

* Unrelated, the season after my daughter was first coached by this particular woman, my daughter moved up an age group, while her friend and coach stayed behind. That season, nearly a third of the woman's team suddenly quit about two practices into the new season because parents didn't want their precious daughters "exposed to the lesbian." I was angry for weeks. Fortunately, it didn't  happen in subsequent seasons.

I have a similar view. From 1st grade - 4th grade my best friend, with whom I spent every waking minute with, was adopted by two lesbian mothers. None of my other siblings had any exposure to homosexuality that was nearly as frequent as mine.

Fast forward to today and I’m the only active member out of my siblings. One sibling is gay and  another transgender. I’m not sure how much “exposure” to these things really effect our eventual outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more quote from the April 2006 General Conference. (my favorite conference) I recommend reading both talks from Elder Bednar and Elder Stone.

"My involvement with the building of the Manhattan temple gave me the opportunity to be in the temple quite often prior to the dedication. It was wonderful to sit in the celestial room and be there in perfect silence, without a single sound to be heard coming from the busy New York streets outside. How was it possible that the temple could be so reverently silent when the hustle and bustle of the metropolis was just a few yards away? The answer was in the construction of the temple. The temple was built within the walls of an existing building, and the inner walls of the temple were connected to the outer walls at only a very few junction points. That is how the temple (Zion) limited the effects of Babylon, or the world outside. There may be a lesson here for us. We can create the real Zion among us by limiting the extent to which Babylon will influence our lives"

"We do not need to adopt the standards, the mores, and the morals of Babylon. We can create Zion in the midst of Babylon. We can have our own standards for music and literature and dance and film and language. We can have our own standards for dress and deportment, for politeness and respect. We can live in accordance with the Lord’s moral laws. We can limit how much of Babylon we allow into our homes by the media of communication. We can live as a Zion people, if we wish to. Will it be hard? Of course it will, for the waves of Babylonian culture crash incessantly against our shores. Will it take courage? Of course it will."

Elder David R. Stone

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2019 at 9:47 AM, anatess2 said:

From my frame of reference, Mrs. Doubtfire was funny but bad.  It normalizes divorce.  I was, of course, in the Philippines, where there was a movement to legalize divorce.  Good thing Mrs. Doubtfire, although gained lots of Filipino viewers, didn't influence culture too much to allow the movement to succeed.

I remember this being the argument for some of my friends and acquaintances also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

@Godless's point was that we cannot love our neighbor without knowing them -- and logically therefore we must watch movies about them so we can know them. 

I would challenge that on every level as absolutely false.

 

My point was that, to me, it seems closed-minded to freak out over an inconsequential scene in a children's movie that depicts a lifestyle that you disagree with, but that in no way harms you or your family.  I put emphasis on that last bit since you decided to equate a loving same-sex couple to porn stars in a previous post. Gratuitous displays of violence and sexual acts can have a negative impact on children, and you should absolutely use parental discretion to keep you kids from being exposed to that, as I do mine. But to equate things like that to the depiction of a loving family with same-sex parents seems way off base to me. You seem to be of the mindset that something like this makes the whole movie a celebration of the gay lifestyle, rather than a kids movie that briefly features a gay couple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Godless said:

 

My point was that, to me, it seems closed-minded to freak out over an inconsequential scene in a children's movie that depicts a lifestyle that you disagree with, but that in no way harms you or your family.  I put emphasis on that last bit since you decided to equate a loving same-sex couple to porn stars in a previous post. Gratuitous displays of violence and sexual acts can have a negative impact on children, and you should absolutely use parental discretion to keep you kids from being exposed to that, as I do mine. But to equate things like that to the depiction of a loving family with same-sex parents seems way off base to me. You seem to be of the mindset that something like this makes the whole movie a celebration of the gay lifestyle, rather than a kids movie that briefly features a gay couple.

Remember @Godless, moral outrage is largely self serving. https://reason.com/2017/03/01/moral-outrage-is-self-serving/. That's why people of all political stripes love to engage it it. Like the article says, it makes them feel noble, moral, heroic, etc. 

 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Godless said:

it seems closed-minded to freak out

When you use extreme terms such as "freak out" to describe the situation you've set it up so the communication is guaranteed to break down. You then spring board off the notion that it's a "freak out" and condemn such "freak out".

That's called a straw man.

1 hour ago, Godless said:

but that in no way harms you or your family.

I disagree with this and find it particularly closed minded. I'll agree the harm may not be extreme. But I do not agree (nor would I expect to with everyone) that there is no harm (or potential harm) whatsoever.

1 hour ago, Godless said:

you decided to equate a loving same-sex couple to porn stars in a previous post

I think you must not know what the word "equate" actually means. I did no such thing. If you do know what it is to actually equate, then you claiming I did proves that you're blinded by some bias. I'll explain:

1 hour ago, Godless said:

Gratuitous displays of violence and sexual acts can have a negative impact on children, and you should absolutely use parental discretion to keep you kids from being exposed to that, as I do mine.

If there are things that we should keep our children away from, as you agreed to, then your argument that exposing them to certain things is de facto good for them isn't true across the board. That is the argument you made. So are you shifting the goal post a bit here now? Because you said if something is a reality of the world we live in, and Hollywood puts it on the screen, then if kids will learn of it one day anyhow, then not going to see a movie is "hiding from it", and not a good plan.

Now you're agreeing that there are, indeed, things that we should "hide" our children from.

The logic is simple. If there are things that we should hide our children from (using an extreme example to make a point, such as porn) then the question is simply where is the line drawn, which is the whole point of the question of the post. If I was committed to "hiding" from every little thing would I be asking the question and opening up the matter for debate? There's literally a question in the title of the post (despite the fact I didn't add a question mark).

If you want to share your opinion that the time has not come, and that this is not the line, then that's great -- that's what the thread was started for. But when you try and suggest that the reason for doing so is because otherwise you're hiding your children from things, then the point breaks down very quickly with more extreme examples, as you have agreed -- because we should, indeed, hide our children from some things.

1 hour ago, Godless said:

But to equate

There's that mistaken word again.

1 hour ago, Godless said:

things like that to the depiction of a loving family with same-sex parents seems way off base to me.

And if I were saying in any regard that a depiction of two mothers dropping off a child at pre-school was just as bad as (equated to) viewing porn then you'd be right. That would be off base. I suspect you know fully well that no reasonable person would actually literally believe that the scene in Toy Story 4 "equates" to hardcore pornography.

1 hour ago, Godless said:

You seem to be of the mindset that something like this makes the whole movie a celebration of the gay lifestyle, rather than a kids movie that briefly features a gay couple.

I am not of that mindset. That's your biased interpretation of things. My question is whether a kids' movie that briefly features a gay couple is cause enough to walk away from it. My inclination is that it is. My contention is that there is, indeed, harm. Additionally, my response to your philosophy is not that the harm of all things is equal. It is that if harm is a reason to avoid things, then a claim that "hiding" from something is bad must be contingent either upon that thing not being harmful or there being a greater good (which I believe, if you'd reflect on it a bit, is actually your position). Whereas I understand you do not believe there is harm in something like the scene in TS4, I would hope that you would be willing to admit that the question is over that (harmful or not) and not over whether hiding your children from certain things is a good idea or not. If you can see that point instead of exaggerating everything to "freak out" levels then maybe we can have a useful conversation. If you're just going to create this straw man that I'm some half Amish, half prepper, Bible-thumping, standing-on-the-corner-with-my-THE-WORLD-IS-ENDING-sign, neo-Nazi, KKK, crazy person then I'm not sure your responses really have much use.

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now