The Folk Prophet

Separating from entertainment -- has the time fully come

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

I'm convinced the real debate is not about TS4, but about how much we shield our young from immorality.

Kind of. I mean that's part of it. The other part of it, I believe, is whether there is any real value -- ever -- in movies? And, conversely, even with whatever minimal value one might find, is shielding children from immorality in movies, even to the extreme, really going to create resentment, ignorance, and fragility? And if so, what did people do before moving picture were invented? :)

It's one thing for people to say some moment in a movie isn't harmful, and partaking of that entertainment is thereby a viable harmless option. It's another thing entirely when the reactions seem to be saying that those who decide it's not worth it are somehow doing something wrong.

17 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Too little and we create resentment, ignorance, and fragility.

You know, the more I think about this, the more I think it's based on nothing but anecdote. I'm just not convinced it's true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Scott said:

The two moms thing in Toy Story 4 is apparently really hidden as well

Then that's a point worth making.

1 minute ago, Scott said:

I make that assumption from your comment implying that Disney/Pixar movies used to be a safe bet and now they aren't.

A comment you apparently don't understand. It seems very likely that any future Disney/Pixar movie will move beyond the subtle and hidden to the open and obvious. They are constantly pushing the boundaries and constantly getting more and more acceptance and approval for doing so. That is what I mean by them not being a safe bet any more.

3 minutes ago, Scott said:

so I was just questioning why you said they were a safe bet now, but not before.

Because if I haven't noticed the joke in the Cars sign, the word SEX in the dust, or the phallic symbol on the cover until they're explicitly pointed out to me by someone on the internet then I'm pretty sure my kids won't notice, understand, care, or be influenced in any way by them either. And in the case of the Cars sign, more importantly, I don't have a problem with a very mildly edgy joke and, as I said, might tell the same sort of joke with and around my family because IT'S A JOKE!

Showing two mom's as normal and wholesome is not a joke.

The meaning in that difference should be plain.

6 minutes ago, Scott said:

I'm skeptical that you didn't notice all the adult jokes or content in Disney/Pixar movies until now, but I guess that could be the case.

Why? You think most people read all the signs in the Cars movies? I'd dare bet that 90% of people who know about any risque type things in Disney/Pixar animated kids' movies know of them because they came across some Youtube video telling them all about it.

You keep saying "all" as if its myriads and myriads. I knew of like....3 prior to this Cars one. I'm sure I may have missed a few more too...but I'd seriously doubt you or anyone could come up with more than...say...10 total...and I'd guess that several of those aren't that big of a deal (like the cars one) and a few more are iffy as to whether they really are what people think they are (like the priest's supposed arousal in The Little Mermaid). Out of hundreds of movies that's not anything like you're suggesting.

And I did say, "pretty" safe, not completely and perfectly safe.

7 minutes ago, Scott said:

Oh and don't forget that Who Framed Roger Rabbit was a Disney movie. 

I would never let my children watch that, nor have I ever seen it, nor will I.

Share this post


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

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:

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.

You're right, I handled your take poorly. I apologize for that. My view is that content which deliberately depicts and/or glorifies excessive violent, destructive behavior shouldn't be shown to children. I get that I'm in a very small minority of people on this forum who don't view homosexuality as immoral, but I would hope that we could at least agree that, generally speaking, same sex couples are very good, decent people whose only significant deviation from you and I is the gender of people they're attracted to. I drink and cuss, but I would hope that the average Christian/LDS can see me as more than a potty-mouthed drinker. We as people are greater than the sum of our sins (in most cases). In short, I don't believe that there's a need to draw any sort of a line at showing "immoral" people doing normal, every day things in a movie.

 

7 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

No, you don't have to watch LGBT-promoting movies to acknowledge/love a neighbor who happens to be LGBT. I didn't really get that from @Godless either. Rather, that preventing kids from any exposure to the existence of same-sex attracted people would make it difficult for us and our children to 'love' them.

@Godless can speak for himself, but I perceived he was reacting to the implied "Don't tell the kids that some people are LGBT" message, more than saying we should immerse our children in immoral media.

Exactly right. I think there's a considerable difference between using LGBT characters as tools to drive an agenda and featuring LGBT characters for the sake of representation. I don't think children's programming has come anywhere near crossing that line. At the most, the entertainment industry is trying to get kids to view LGBT people with compassion and understanding. Moral agreeability isn't a prerequisite for that, imo.

7 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The strong implication was that if we don't take our children to the kids' movies with LGBT couples in them then we're making a wrong choice. That is, after all, the whole question on the table.

Yes, that's basically my position. If the movie deliberately glorifies and celebrates the LGBT lifestyle, then I can understand (though not agree with) a moral objection. My stance is that Hollywood hasn't come close to that point in children's programming.

6 hours ago, anatess2 said:

This discussion is VERY VERY clear to me.  You'll never be able to resolve this conversation because Godless thinks same sex parents are good

Again, I would hope that most of us can agree that there are many same sex couples who are overall very good people. Your moral objection to their love life doesn't have to cancel that out.

Quote

and even if he doesn't say it, it is pretty clear that he harbors the feeling that those who do not think so are the problem rather than the same sex parents.  TFP, of course, holds the complete opposite position.

If you look at an individual and can't see anything past their sexual orientation, yes, I absolutely believe that's a problem.

Share this post


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

You're right, I handled your take poorly. I apologize for that. My view is that content which deliberately depicts and/or glorifies excessive violent, destructive behavior shouldn't be shown to children. I get that I'm in a very small minority of people on this forum who don't view homosexuality as immoral, but I would hope that we could at least agree that, generally speaking, same sex couples are very good, decent people whose only significant deviation from you and I is the gender of people they're attracted to. I drink and cuss, but I would hope that the average Christian/LDS can see me as more than a potty-mouthed drinker. We as people are greater than the sum of our sins (in most cases). In short, I don't believe that there's a need to draw any sort of a line at showing "immoral" people doing normal, every day things in a movie.

It is not the homosexual people I have a problem with in movies. (Which I hope would be obvious since they're...you know...computer generated cartoons in this case). It is the homosexuality itself on display.

5 minutes ago, Godless said:

Yes, that's basically my position. If the movie deliberately glorifies and celebrates the LGBT lifestyle, then I can understand (though not agree with) a moral objection. My stance is that Hollywood hasn't come close to that point in children's programming.

Then I think we disagree on what it means to glorify and celebrate something. First, to me, showing a super happy couple with a loving child is putting a lie to the reality of things, because I believe in the gospel principle that wickedness never was happiness. This I understand you will not agree with. Second, showing the lifestyle as a warm, wonderful, nurturing thing is, very much, glorifying and celebrating it, because what greater glory and celebration is there than the true love of family?

8 minutes ago, Godless said:

Again, I would hope that most of us can agree that there are many same sex couples who are overall very good people.

We cannot agree or disagree to their other goodness or badness outside the homosexuality because we don't know. There's no reason to presume any person that I don't know is good or bad. But that's beyond the point. It is the homosexuality itself that is, by our view, bad and that we object to.

Now before you tell me the following example is equating things to homosexuality I'm going to make it clear that I am not. It's an extreme example.

It's like saying this guy murders bunnies -- but he's really nice and polite, serves in a soup kitchen for the poor, and gives money to charities. (Insert anything you consider bad in the place of bunny murder for the example). The bunny murder is still bad regardless of the other "good" the person might do/be.

So how many things does any individual have to do that are considered "bad" before said people are "bad" anyhow? I mean it's not really a question worth answering, now, is it? But who do you consider "bad"? What act does someone need to engage in to be considered "bad" in your book? What if someone else doesn't consider that act bad? Does that render it not bad? Do you just capitulate to the lowest common denominator until there is no good or bad whatsoever?

Ted Bundy was a really nice guy who worked for a suicide help line and was pursuing a law degree. (Note, once again, this is not "equating" homosexuality to serial murder. It's an example.)

17 minutes ago, Godless said:

If you look at an individual and can't see anything past their sexual orientation

Can you defend this idea beyond just saying it? Because I'm pretty sure that, as for me and the homosexual people I know, I see a great deal more than just their sexual orientation. Which is irrelevant to whether I approve of homosexuality or their displaying it in any given circumstance. But even more importantly -- when there's an cartoon character created as an extra for the sole purpose of displaying a homosexual relationship dropping off a shared kid at a preschool, you really want us to believe that it's important to see more out of it...like their cartoon selves really have this actual life of supposed cartoon goodness that we're missing? Really?

Share this post


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

Kind of. I mean that's part of it. The other part of it, I believe, is whether there is any real value -- ever -- in movies? And, conversely, even with whatever minimal value one might find, is shielding children from immorality in movies, even to the extreme, really going to create resentment, ignorance, and fragility? And if so, what did people do before moving picture were invented? :)

It's one thing for people to say some moment in a movie isn't harmful, and partaking of that entertainment is thereby a viable harmless option. It's another thing entirely when the reactions seem to be saying that those who decide it's not worth it are somehow doing something wrong.

You know, the more I think about this, the more I think it's based on nothing but anecdote. I'm just not convinced it's true.

Your view is much wider spread than you might imagine. There are a fair number of Christians who believe that exposing our children to government schooling is gross spiritual negligence, at best. Throughout the first half century of Pentecostalism we did not go to the moving pictures (or dance, you heathens! 😜). After the Moral Majority fell I believe it was Gary Bauer who began arguing that Christians should create our own subculture and take on an siege mentality. So, I get the perspective. Further, I suspect that most of Christianity has gone too far the other direction. We are so in the world that the world can't see that we have much different to offer. So, I'm tracking with you more than you may realize.

Still...yes there are young people who have left their "fundamentalist" faith behind. Some probably would have gone apostate regardless, but too many complain that religion was too much about appearances, boundary-marking, and holier-than-thouism. If a family chooses to avoid all movies I can see that working. Frankly, we don't have TV viewing in our house--only streaming outlets we can monitor. We avoided trick or treating, but allowed for parties and 'trunk or treating' at churches. Probably far more important than saying yes or no to this or that is that mom/dad are conversing with their young throughout. In the earlier years, it's not asking the kids for permission, but more about giving them some concept of why--about what personal holiness is. After all, the goal is that by the teen years they are choosing what is good and godly for themselves. Where shielding/sheltering go wrong, imho, is when it's 'Because I said so," and about "Don't question authority." My kids had to question authority all the time--they did public school

Edited by prisonchaplain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Your view is much wider spread than you might imagine. There are a fair number of Christians who believe that exposing our children to government schooling is gross spiritual negligence, at best. Throughout the first half century of Pentecostalism we did not go to the moving pictures (or dance, you heathens! 😜). After the Moral Majority fell I believe it was Gary Bauer who began arguing that Christians should create our own subculture and take on an siege mentality. So, I get the perspective. Further, I suspect that most of Christianity has gone too far the other direction. We are so in the world that the world can't see that we have much different to offer. So, I'm tracking with you more than you may realize.

Still...yes there are young people who have left their "fundamentalist" faith behind. Some probably would have gone apostate regardless, but too many complain that religion was too much about appearances, boundary-marking, and holier-than-thouism. If a family chooses to avoid all movies I can see that working. Frankly, we don't have TV viewing in our house--only streaming outlets we can monitor. We avoided trick or treating, but allowed for parties and 'trunk or treating' at churches. Probably far more important than saying yes or no to this or that is that mom/dad are conversing with their young throughout. In the earlier years, it's not asking the kids for permission, but more about giving them some concept of why--about what personal holiness is. After all, the goal is that by the teen years they are choosing what is good and godly for themselves. Where shielding/sheltering go wrong, imho, is when it's 'Because I said so," and about "Don't question authority." My kids had to question authority all the time--they did public school

I think one LDS approach that may be evolving towards mass media is based in then-Elder Oaks’ “good, better, best” paradigm.  It’s not really that we need to adopt a bunker mentality towards mass entertainment.  It’s just that, with so many other good and worthy causes and activities demanding our time—if we can really get our priorities right, the pop-culture pimps in movies, television and music can’t help but find themselves increasingly being crowded out of our own and our children's lives.  

It’s not our animus that starves them; it’s our apathy.

Share this post


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

A comment you apparently don't understand. It seems very likely that any future Disney/Pixar movie will move beyond the subtle and hidden to the open and obvious. They are constantly pushing the boundaries and constantly getting more and more acceptance and approval for doing so. That is what I mean by them not being a safe bet any more.

No, I do understand.   I agree that they have been pushing boundaries.    Where we disagree is that it has been happening for decades, not all of the sudden.

Quote

Because if I haven't noticed the joke in the Cars sign, the word SEX in the dust, or the phallic symbol on the cover until they're explicitly pointed out to me by someone on the internet then I'm pretty sure my kids won't notice, understand, care, or be influenced in any way by them either.

Most kids won't understand, care, or be influenced in any way by the two moms scene either.   

Quote

Why? You think most people read all the signs in the Cars movies? I'd dare bet that 90% of people who know about any risque type things in Disney/Pixar animated kids' movies know of them because they came across some Youtube video telling them all about it.

This is true with the hidden ones.   A lot of the jokes and situations aren't hidden in any way whatso ever.

Here are a few examples:
 

Image result for hocus pocus we desire children

 

Most people don't have to look it up on Youtube to notice these.  They are plainly obvious.  

Quote

You keep saying "all" as if its myriads and myriads. I knew of like....3 prior to this Cars one.

Then you haven't been paying attention.   I notice a lot and I don't even watch TV or movies very often.  

Quote

I'm sure I may have missed a few more too...but I'd seriously doubt you or anyone could come up with more than...say...10 total...and I'd guess that several of those aren't that big of a deal (like the cars one) and a few more are iffy as to whether they really are what people think they are (like the priest's supposed arousal in The Little Mermaid).

There are a lot more than three, or even ten.   And as you point out some are probably fake or unintentional, such as the aroused priest and the "SEX" spelled out in the clouds (the phallis on the Little Mermaid cover was real, but that was from a disgruntled artist and not the fault of Disney).    Those are really un-noticable.  

Anyway, I do agree with you that cartoons and the like are pushing boundaries.   The best solution is to turn it off.

Where we disagree is when it started happening.    Even with Disney/Pixar, it started years ago.

As far as the two moms thing goes, I'm OK with anyone disagreeing with this, but if people have a problem with it, they should also have at least an equal problem with the other garbage in shows as well.   

Edited by Scott

Share this post


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

It is the homosexuality itself on display.

What about all of the heterosexual immorality and violence on display?   Is this at least equally bad?   We even have a president on display who is incredibly sexually immoral.   Even if you don't go to movies, it's hard to ignore that.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Scott said:

Where we disagree is that it has been happening for decades, not all of the sudden.

We don't disagree on that. Why would you presume we disagree on that? Show me where I even implied "all of a sudden".

8 minutes ago, Scott said:

Most kids won't understand, care, or be influenced in any way by the two moms scene either. 

It's easy to just say stuff.

9 minutes ago, Scott said:

Most people don't have to look it up on Youtube to notice these.  They are plainly obvious.  

I see nothing inappropriate or corrupting in the cartoon examples. You're, apparently, more of a prude than I am. Either that or you just have a dirty mind.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Scott said:

What about all of the heterosexual immorality and violence on display? 

What about it? When and if it is, actually, a problem then I'm against it.

What does that have to do with my concern for homosexuality on display?

Nothing. It's a pointless response. You're deflecting.

17 minutes ago, Scott said:

Is this at least equally bad?

Of course not. A man and woman holding hands (a display of heterosexuality) is wholesome and good and right. Two men holding hands is agenda driven corruption.

17 minutes ago, Scott said:

 We even have a president on display who is incredibly sexually immoral.   Even if you don't go to movies, it's hard to ignore that.    

Ah...useful. Let's add another irrelevant point into the mix. That'll help.

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


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

We don't disagree on that. Why would you presume we disagree on that? Show me where I even implied "all of a sudden".

I thought we already covered that.   It was from your comment that Disney/Pixar movies used to be a safe bet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Scott said:

I thought we already covered that.   

And apparently you're ignoring all my responses.

12 minutes ago, Scott said:

It was from your comment that Disney/Pixar movies used to be a safe bet.

Why would you translate that to "all of a sudden"?

Share this post


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

I see nothing inappropriate or corrupting in the cartoon examples. 

You really think that in a kids show, a joke about impregnating multiple unmarried women is appropriate while an unobvious and obscure scene of a few seconds showing two women hug a child is not?

I guess I really don't have anything to say about that.    If that's really want you think, I don't think it will do any good to discuss further.   Have a good day sir.  😉

Edited by Scott

Share this post


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

The other part of it, I believe, is whether there is any real value -- ever -- in movies?

Apparently, there is real value in torture porn such as The Passion of the Christ that cannot be had by more traditional means such as reading scriptures or in more mundane venues such as Sunday School.

Share this post


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

Apparently, there is real value in torture porn such as The Passion of the Christ that cannot be had by more traditional means such as reading scriptures or in more mundane venues such as Sunday School.

Yeah. Because of...."the feels". ;) 

Share this post


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

Apparently, there is real value in torture porn such as The Passion of the Christ that cannot be had by more traditional means such as reading scriptures or in more mundane venues such as Sunday School.

I'll give you 100$ if you walk up to the mother of the daughter who was murdered-you know, the one where the killer confessed after watching The Passion-and tell her that the movie had "no value". Then, tell the cops who investigated the case that the movie had "no value." Seriously, 100$ is yours. You must do it face to face with her, then the same with the cops. Then the same with the killer who confessed. 

100$. Cash, all yours. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


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

Yeah. Because of...."the feels". ;) 

I’ll push back on this a bit.  We do, after all, belong to the Church that produced The Lamb of God, which had plenty of feels (but  much less blood and more strategic camera cut-aways).  If Gibson’s version is “torture porn”, how is our version not?

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

If Gibson’s version is “torture porn”, how is our version not?

To be clear: I have never seen TPotC and I can't imagine I ever will. My use of the term "torture porn" is based on a (non-LDS) movie reviewer's take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I have never in my life been comfortable with explicit depictions of Christ's "passion". Even as a child, I found it off-putting. As an adult, I perceive an alien, Catholic feel to it. That it occurs in Church-produced videos doesn't change my reaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I’ll push back on this a bit.

In the spirit of wasting time I'll indulge you. :)

41 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

We do, after all, belong to the Church that produced The Lamb of God, which had plenty of feels (but  much less blood and more strategic camera cut-aways).

I didn't say there was something wrong the "the feels".

42 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

If Gibson’s version is “torture porn”, how is our version not?

I believe there are two key words here. 1. Torture. 2. Porn.

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