Is there ever a point where believing members of The Church need to stop supporting social norms of pop culture?


FoolsMock
 Share

Recommended Posts

There is some context to the main point of this thread.  If you want to skip that and just get to the main point, jump down to the line titled, "The Main Point"

 

 

I never know where to go to to talk about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because so many members seem so split on how the church feels about social issues today that fight against principles outlined in The Family: A Proclamation to The World, and by extension, principles we believe are eternal.

I'm talking about how fundamental beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints view marriage and gender in God's eyes.  I don't know what members believe what anymore.  I don't know who stands by The Proclamation any more and who wishes the church's views on these topics would change.  This is why I say I never know where to go to for discussion about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I feel like we aren't united

But getting to the title of this thread, I hope this forum may be an appropriate place for this question I will be posing.  I saw Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker tonight with some family.  And while I'm not crazy about the Disney corporation (or their handling of the Star Wars brand), Disney and Star Wars are very important to my dad.  My dad is a believing member of what I would call "Fundamental Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint" beliefs.  I say fundamental, because as I said earlier, I don't know how many of us are still supporters of The Proclamation and how many of us desire that The Church would change its view/doctrine on the core principles taught in it. 

At this point I don't know what you would call the Church's stance on it firmly and succinctly. I mean the leaders have never been confident enough to make The Proclamation "scripture" on a highlighted enough level to belong in The Doctrine and Covenants and I believe the recent policy change said married couples of the same sex wouldn't be declared as committing a sin on the level of being called an abomination anymore--to clarify on this, I was informed that The Family Proclamation never explicitly referred to same sex relationships as abomination, so I'm sorry for misquoting The Family Proclamation, also recent statements from General Authority have clarified that unchaste sexual behavior in general is considered abomination and the word change I referred to in the policy change was apostasy, not abomination (I was wrong), the behavior I described is now no longer declared apostasy in regards to the technical words used to describe why one may be facing church disciplinary action--Back to my dad, I care about him and his interests and hobbies so I enthusiastically went to the movie with him and looked for the best in the movie and after the movie talked about it in a really positive matter with my dad, up until a certain point in the conversation. 

We reach a point in the conversation where my dad just goes "I really liked how Disney handled that certain kiss in the movie."  This kiss goes against God's views as outlined in the Proclamation.  And in my head I am like "What the ****?"  And outwardly, I'm immediately annoyed and I just put my foot down and I say I don't like it at all.  And I said I was disappointed because it's clear that today it's one thing, but tomorrow, because we all tell Disney and these companies we're okay with stuff like this, tomorrow the nature of the kiss will play a much larger role in these movies.  And I'm going to have to raise my kids in a world where the entertainment they consume is filled with deeper anti-Proclamation material, because today we said "this kiss is okay, this kiss was classy and not too in the face"

 

The Main Point: Disney owns so much of what we consume for entertainment.  And if Disney or if any company, is going to put material that paints concepts that The Proclamation declares to be abominations in God's eyes in a positive light, and if this positive inclusion spreads the acceptance of iniquity (which leads to truth being persecuted more and more), do we have a moral obligation to put our foot down and say "not anymore" and stop spending our money on these products (and consuming these products)?

If we just keep supporting popular "family entertainment" that continues to put more and more material that The Church says works against God's laws (and that communities that embrace these things will experience the destruction of the family unit and will bring to pass the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets), does that show a lack of sincerity in our beliefs?  Is that living too far in the world?

Or is it no big deal?  I try to be super objective and I'm sitting here feeling awful at how I clearly lost my cool talking about this with my Dad and I know there are girls I'd love to date whose Dad's are probably just as into Disney as my Dad is.  And I wouldn't act to them the way I acted to my Dad tonight.  I feel awful.  And I just don't know if we as a collective whole are supposed to stop showing up to this sort of family entertainment, or let it slide.

Edited by FoolsMock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on what you wrote, we probably mostly in agreement. I dispute the claim that the Church seems to act like e.g. homosexuality is no big deal, but I do agree that there is a tendency among certain types in the Church to, in effect, embrace the sin while trying to theatricality embrace the sinner. I think this is abhorrent. I also think it's not my place to steady the ark, and I trust that my leaders are taking the necessary steps.

I have heard of what can only honestly be termed heresies in some stakes and wards/branches, and I have even seen some. I hope always to stand strong as an advocate for revealed truth,  in every situation. But again, I hope I always do so within the context of my own responsibilities, and not overstep my bounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole life is a test to see if we will do all things God commands.  Can you think of a more telling place to see where we draw that line then what we choose for entertainment?

As for the church there are many cases in the scriptures where the membership gets sifted (the wheat and tares look alike until fully ripe)

Thus what you are seeing while not good... should be expected.  The answer is for us as individuals to do all things God commands and take the spirit to be our constant companion. Act within our stewardship when it comes to correcting others and let the lord handle the rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer to your question is yes. 

"The standard is clear. If something we think, see, hear, or do distances us from the Holy Ghost, then we should stop thinking, seeing, hearing, or doing that thing. If that which is intended to entertain, for example, alienates us from the Holy Spirit, then certainly that type of entertainment is not for us. Because the Spirit cannot abide that which is vulgar, crude, or immodest, then clearly such things are not for us."

David A. Bednar, Apr 2006 General Conference

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, FoolsMock said:

The Main Point: Disney owns so much of what we consume for entertainment.  And if Disney or if any company, is going to put material that paints concepts that The Proclamation declares to be abominations in God's eyes in a positive light, and if this positive inclusion spreads the acceptance of iniquity (which leads to truth being persecuted more and more), do we have a moral obligation to put our foot down and say "not anymore" and stop spending our money on these products (and consuming these products)?

Our 13th Article of Faith declares the following, "If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things." The main question in this thread has been brought up in other threads also where this is being publicized as the norm.

I mentioned in the other thread how I stopped watching Supergirl because it was more about a lesbian couple rather than Supergirl. I would think putting our foot down is more along the lines of what we decide to watch ourselves and what we decide not to watch. I think @scottyg's quote from Elder Bednar pretty much nails it and is inline with our 13th Article of Faith.

There are a couple kid shows that I will no longer be watching in our home due to the same reason. It's unfortunate because these were really good shows. First season is great. Second is even better, and in the third season they introduce the same concept as OK -- good (which isn't good).

We see now more than ever evil being called good, and good evil. People who are standing up for the good are -- as you say -- being persecuted for standing up for the good (God's good). Our society's mantra is "Live and let live/die." As long as I am not hurting you physically no harm, no foul. And in a Telestial world, we are able to see how Telestial attitudes and decisions are praised, while Terrestrial and Celestial attitudes and decisions are persecuted.

Yes, we have a moral obligation. That moral obligation is within our own choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Well, if it helps, Disney removed that kiss for versions of the movie airing in the middle east.  Might be scant comfort, but it shows the quest for the almighty dollar is still more important than the quest for cultural transformation.

 

2.

10 hours ago, FoolsMock said:

material that paints concepts that The Proclamation declares to be abominations in God's eyes

The word "abomination" doesn't appear in the proclamation.  Please clarify.  The Family: A Proclamation to the World

 

3.  I'm probably straining here, but I always have to ask whenever someone focuses so single-mindedly on a same-sex aspect of morality in culture.  You seem to be focusing on one single scene in the movie.  It's currently popular in Christian circles to blow our top about SSA sin, while totally ignoring all other sin.  Are you saying the rest of the movie was just fine in terms of the Proclamation?  That without that scene, going to see it would represent the "wholesome recreational activity" you wanted for your family?  Because I saw an awful lot of violence and killing, not to mention women focused on military careers instead of nurturing their children.  God is absent in the Star Wars movies, replaced by an Americanized version of Chineese Taoism/Daoism.  No spoilers, but you remember the first Rey scene, as well as the climax of the end face-off between Rey and head bad guy?

GoldFlwr3.gif

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, here's a spoiler - highlight the text to read:

---------------

I wasn't the only guy who picked up on the fact that the bad guy staffed his massive fleet with soldiers kidnapped as children, right?  Everyone else saw how young the people in those Star Destroyers were, right?  That was probably the 2nd biggest heartwrench of the movie for me, seeing the rebels "win" by killing fleets of slaves who didn't know any better. 

------------

And here we are, worked up into a lather that lesbians exist?

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

And here we are, worked up into a lather that lesbians exist?

Heh...  is it really about getting worked up that lesbians exist... or is it more about someone getting worked up because they think they are right and everyone that does not think like them is wrong/evil/bad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So... I just had a talk with my sister who is a nurse.  She related to me a story about her time as a fresh-from-school floor nurse for a diabetic Catholic nun whose glucose level was rising beyond 300.  This nun has had mental health problems.  As a nurse, the rule was that if you have a patient with mental disorder causing delusions, you don't feed the delusion.  The nun's glucose level rose unabated because the nurses before my sister's shift couldn't get her to take the medicine because the nun thinks it's from Satan.  My sister started her shift having to deal with the nun and she decided to take the medicine, cut it up, then gave it to the nun.  The nun immediately acted up, rejected the meds, telling everybody the meds are from Satan.  My sister looked at the nun in the eye and casually told her - this one is not from Satan.  This medicine is angelicum, it can't be touched by Satan.  The nun took the meds.  My sister's supervisor witnessed the whole thing and she reminded my sister that nurses should not feed a patient's delusion.  My sister replied to the supervisor that the delusion is not her main concern.  Her main concern is to drop that glucose level.  She'll deal with the delusion after the main problem has been resolved because it doesn't matter if she is brought back from her delusion if she's dead anyway.

This is how I see the Church deal with cultural issues.  They deal with the main problem and when that is brought out of danger, then they deal with the next main problem.  Unfortunately, people think that because the Church conceded a lesser problem that now it is not a problem and it is now accepted by the Church as good.  This is, of course, incorrect.

So, my advice - bring your life to balance.  One step closer to Christ.  It doesn't matter if you have to put some problems to the back burner if dealing with those problems ends up bringing you farther from Christ.  One thing to note - you can't influence people to take that step closer to Christ if they have put you outside of that circle of influence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, estradling75 said:
44 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

And here we are, worked up into a lather that lesbians exist?

Heh...  is it really about getting worked up that lesbians exist... or is it more about someone getting worked up because they think they are right and everyone that does not think like them is wrong/evil/bad

I don't think it's about either one. I think it's about getting worked up that an insidious evil is being foisted on us and our children, and those who have the temerity to point it out are met with, "Look at all these OTHER sins that are just as bad, and some even worse! Why aren't you getting all hot and bothered about THEM?"

Only a generation ago, it was widely accepted that portraying homosexual relations as normal was not merely distasteful, but immoral. Now it is represented as morally acceptable and even desirable. This is not the case with murder, rape, child abduction, and so forth.

As for me, I have little interest in Star Wars, and I find Disney largely deplorable. (Look! I'm Hillary Clinton!) But to my way of thinking, claiming the normalization of homosexuality acceptable because child abduction is worse just doesn't fly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So... my son turned 18 a few months ago.  He bought a game off the internet and now somebody got hold of his cell number.  On Christmas Eve, somebody saying her name is Jenn texted him.  My son knows a Jenn so he replied to the text.  He soon found out Jenn was a scammer.  "She" texted him that she was lonely and just needed somebody to talk to and proceeded to send him a not-quite-porn-but-not-PG13-either picture and a link to her chat room.  My son replied to her that unfortunately, his sexuality is locked away and Jesus has the key.  "Jenn" proceeded to make some quite convincing sales pitch about how she's just some normal girl... and so my son replied he would love to talk to her about Jesus.

Anyway, my son showed the texts to me complete with the picture and I looked at him and said... you are preparing for a mission, you can't be involved with something like this.  And he said, "Jenn" is a scammer and that he wouldn't be surprised if Jenn is actually some poor 12 year old kid in Nigeria texting random numbers to sell a pornsite so he can get some money to buy shoes.  He's trying to reach that 12 year old kid... and see if he can bring him to Jesus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Vort said:

I don't think it's about either one. I think it's about getting worked up that an insidious evil is being foisted on us and our children, and those who have the temerity to point it out are met with, "Look at all these OTHER sins that are just as bad, and some even worse! Why aren't you getting all hot and bothered about THEM?"

Only a generation ago, it was widely accepted that portraying homosexual relations as normal was not merely distasteful, but immoral. Now it is represented as morally acceptable and even desirable. This is not the case with murder, rape, child abduction, and so forth.

As for me, I have little interest in Star Wars, and I find Disney largely deplorable. (Look! I'm Hillary Clinton!) But to my way of thinking, claiming the normalization of homosexuality acceptable because child abduction is worse just doesn't fly.

Exactly.

All the people getting killed in Star Wars are generally considered bad and are portrayed in the movie as bad.  Homosexuality is portrayed in the movie as good.  Big difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

1. Well, if it helps, Disney removed that kiss for versions of the movie airing in the middle east.  Might be scant comfort, but it shows the quest for the almighty dollar is still more important than the quest for cultural transformation.

 

2.

The word "abomination" doesn't appear in the proclamation.  Please clarify.  The Family: A Proclamation to the World

 

3.  I'm probably straining here, but I always have to ask whenever someone focuses so single-mindedly on a same-sex aspect of morality in culture.  You seem to be focusing on one single scene in the movie.  It's currently popular in Christian circles to blow our top about SSA sin, while totally ignoring all other sin.  Are you saying the rest of the movie was just fine in terms of the Proclamation?  That without that scene, going to see it would represent the "wholesome recreational activity" you wanted for your family?  Because I saw an awful lot of violence and killing, not to mention women focused on military careers instead of nurturing their children.  God is absent in the Star Wars movies, replaced by an Americanized version of Chineese Taoism/Daoism.  No spoilers, but you remember the first Rey scene, as well as the climax of the end face-off between Rey and head bad guy?

GoldFlwr3.gif

On your 2nd point, I apologize for inaccurately quoting The Family proclamation and if I can still edit my original post, I will make a note that I misquoted it.

 

3.  That is a great point on why we seem to accept violence in popular culture but single out SSA as so damaging.  I will try to explain my issue with the kiss.  The kiss would not have been in a movie like this in the 90s.  A kiss like this wasn't even in The Force Awakens.  But a kiss like this is here now, and it comes 7 or so months after Avengers Endgame (another Disney Corporation movie) included a bit on how normal SSA is.  And to the world, I understand that it is normal.  My issue is that a kiss like that today, is a main character's love interest tomorrow.  So my hypothetical kids are now being raised on movies where likable main characters have love lives showing how human and "normal" SSA is.  And my hypothetical kids like these characters and they don't understand why I would teach them that SSA is something we believe God doesn't like and SSA relationships have no place in the afterlife and are harmful to the family unit.  I see the gay date conversation in Avengers and this kiss as testing the water for approval for more SSA inclusion in the largest family entertainment tentpole movies, and I believe deeper integration of SSA, painted in very strong, empathetic ways, is on its way.  And I think that is going to teach kids from a very young age to view SSA in a positive, normal light.  The violence you are referring to in TROS, I don't know why I'm not so worked up about it.  Maybe because it's so over the top cartoon-y?  When one character is shot in the leg, it's done with a humorous tone.  When large-scale destruction occurs, it's so over the top and largely distant from close bonds that it just feels like noise.  Would I let my hypothetical 10-year-old kid watch the realistic, brutal violence in the Joker movie?  No.  Avengers blowing up aliens that look like monsters and the Star Wars violence where ships blow up? I would.  I suppose I see this quote from President Benson in things like the TROS Kiss;

"I testify that wickedness is rapidly expanding in every segment of our society. (See D&C 1:14–16; D&C 84:49–53.) It is more highly organized, more cleverly disguised, and more powerfully promoted than ever before." (from his "I Testify" talk)

I'm not worried that sci-fi violence (and it can be pretty bad, I feel uncomfortable when Anakin walks over to the younglings and one walks back in shock as he sees him, in Revenge) is going to warp young minds (and minds of all ages) into adopting feelings of acceptance to types of love that we have been warned about as being destructive to our eternal nature and society here on earth.

 

On the Daoism stuff, I feel one reason Star Wars resonates so much with members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is because we find similarities to our beliefs with the world of Star Wars, or mainly the force as it was presented in the original trilogy.  Yoda's lesson to Luke about luminous beings, being more than crude matter (this reminds me of our fallible, mortal bodies) really hits me hard.  So I see your point about this new one adapting ideas from a religion different from ours, and if they went deeper with that, I'd be annoyed by it

 

On your other post with the spoiler, I thought everything to do with that fleet was conjured up, so I didn't notice that

Edited by FoolsMock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Vort said:

Only a generation ago, it was widely accepted that portraying homosexual relations as normal was not merely distasteful, but immoral. Now it is represented as morally acceptable and even desirable. This is not the case with murder, rape, child abduction, and so forth.

 

14 minutes ago, FoolsMock said:

The kiss would not have been in a movie like this in the 90s.  A kiss like this wasn't even in The Force Awakens.  But a kiss like this is here now, and it comes 7 or so months after Avengers Endgame (another Disney Corporation movie) included a bit on how normal SSA is.

 

So yeah, there are multifaceted reasons for this phenomenon.  When it comes to Disney, they are merely following the almighty dollar - no nefarious agenda necessary.  Yes, it's a semi-recent change:

Image result for same sex marriage chart

We all know gays have always existed.  The reason we're seeing them represented more and more in movies and shows and news and whatnot: The backlash from those who say "there's nothing wrong with that", is now greater than the backlash from those who say "there is something wrong with that".     There is no similar chart for murder/rape/child abduction/so forth.

See where that line crosses somewhere in 2010-11-ish?  That's when the "moral majority" stopped existing.  You want to know why the church has so many efforts on home-based faith, and is preaching a message of love to those on the opposite side of our fences?  That line is the answer.  You want to know why absolutely everybody out there is including LGBT representation in their movies and shows, even family friendly folks like Disney and Hasbro?  Because that line tells us that what culture accepts has changed.  What was not family friendly, now is family friendly.  And what American culture expects in terms of representation of various minorities, is not what you and I want it to be.  

This is what it's like to be in the minority.  If you want to blame it on Disney, you're about 7 years behind the times. 

The real discussion is about why the line is moving that way, and what to do about it.  Griping about the culture or the producers of entertainment isn't going to get us any where.   Doing your missionary work and raising strong families in the gospel is going to get us somewhere.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, FoolsMock said:

I believe the recent policy change said married couples of the same sex wouldn't be declared as committing a sin on the level of being called an abomination anymore.

For clarification purposes:
Unchaste sexual behaviors ( Alma 39:3–5 ), including but not limited to, homosexual behavior are still "abominations", this has not changed.
In an interview given by both Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman, Same-Gender Attraction, Elder Lance B. Wickman said :

Quote

Homosexual behavior is and will always remain before the Lord an abominable sin. Calling it something else by virtue of some political definition does not change that reality.

Instead of "abomination", the correct word in the policy change was "apostasy".
In the church announcement, Elders Oaks shared:

Quote

Previously, our handbook characterized same-gender marriage by a member as apostasy. While we still consider such a marriage to be a serious transgression, it will not be treated as apostasy for purposes of Church discipline. Instead, the immoral conduct in heterosexual or homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way.

Those who enter into Church discipline, either for apostasy or for immoral conduct, can still face: disfellowshipment or excommunication - this has not changed either.

Edited by NeedleinA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

 

 

So yeah, there are multifaceted reasons for this phenomenon.  When it comes to Disney, they are merely following the almighty dollar - no nefarious agenda necessary.  Yes, it's a semi-recent change:

Image result for same sex marriage chart

We all know gays have always existed.  The reason we're seeing them represented more and more in movies and shows and news and whatnot: The backlash from those who say "there's nothing wrong with that", is now greater than the backlash from those who say "there is something wrong with that".     There is no similar chart for murder/rape/child abduction/so forth.

See where that line crosses somewhere in 2010-11-ish?  That's when the "moral majority" stopped existing.  You want to know why the church has so many efforts on home-based faith, and is preaching a message of love to those on the opposite side of our fences?  That line is the answer.  You want to know why absolutely everybody out there is including LGBT representation in their movies and shows, even family friendly folks like Disney and Hasbro?  Because that line tells us that what culture accepts has changed.  What was not family friendly, now is family friendly.  And what American culture expects in terms of representation of various minorities, is not what you and I want it to be.  

This is what it's like to be in the minority.  If you want to blame it on Disney, you're about 7 years behind the times. 

The real discussion is about why the line is moving that way, and what to do about it.  Griping about the culture or the producers of entertainment isn't going to get us any where.   Doing your missionary work and raising strong families in the gospel is going to get us somewhere.

Based on a (quick) reading of what you wrote above, I do not disagree with a single point you raise. But though you seem to have addressed the real substance of the issue itself, I don't think you've really addressed the substance of my comment, which was itself a response to your (and others') wondering why people focus on homosexual portrayals as the bone of their contention. People focus on that because that's what's being normalized. Surely no one who abhors sinful conduct would object to people simply saying, "That's sinful conduct."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

Instead of "abomination", the correct word in the policy change was "apostasy".
In the church announcement, Elders Oaks shared:

Quote

Previously, our handbook characterized same-gender marriage by a member as apostasy. While we still consider such a marriage to be a serious transgression, it will not be treated as apostasy for purposes of Church discipline. Instead, the immoral conduct in heterosexual or homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way.

Those who enter into Church discipline, either for apostasy or for immoral conduct, can still face: disfellowshipment or excommunication - this has not changed either.

Let me point out that adultery and other forms of heterosexual fornication are not considered prima facie evidence of apostasy. Homosexuality is another form of fornication, neither more nor less objectionable than others (though certainly more distasteful for many—but distastefulness is a matter of opinion, and it alone has never formed a basis for classifying sin). I see this announcement as saying, "We will now classify homosexual activity along with other forms of fornication." Seems reasonable.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

The real discussion is about why the line is moving that way, and what to do about it.  Griping about the culture or the producers of entertainment isn't going to get us any where.   Doing your missionary work and raising strong families in the gospel is going to get us somewhere.

These things are cyclical.  The truth always prevails.  If you look at the rabid feminist movement of the 70's and 80's that brought us abortion on demand, they have gone so far away from good that people are trending toward rejecting it and moving to a more pro-life leaning.  If you look at Greek history you'll find a period where art - especially sculptures - started depicting homosexual masculinity and then it moved back to masculinity.  Today, the LGBTQ+ movement is getting rapid rubber-banding due to the T part of that alphabet soup. 

In any case, the ushering of the millennium is coming.  I just don't think SSA is going to be the one that puts it all to a head.  I could be wrong, of course. 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the thirdhour accepted timeframe for spoilers?  I need to talk about the real distasteful stuff in TROS: How the whole Rey-Finn-Po-Ben-Kylo love quintangle worked out.  Dangit Rey, you might have saved the universe, but we've gotta talk about how you go about choosing to get romantical.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

What's the thirdhour accepted timeframe for spoilers?  I need to talk about the real distasteful stuff in TROS: How the whole Rey-Finn-Po-Ben-Kylo love quintangle worked out.  Dangit Rey, you might have saved the universe, but we've gotta talk about how you go about choosing to get romantical.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

What's the thirdhour accepted timeframe for spoilers?  I need to talk about the real distasteful stuff in TROS: How the whole Rey-Finn-Po-Ben-Kylo love quintangle worked out.  Dangit Rey, you might have saved the universe, but we've gotta talk about how you go about choosing to get romantical.

We saw the same movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

What's the thirdhour accepted timeframe for spoilers?  I need to talk about the real distasteful stuff in TROS: How the whole Rey-Finn-Po-Ben-Kylo love quintangle worked out.  Dangit Rey, you might have saved the universe, but we've gotta talk about how you go about choosing to get romantical.

You forgot Rose Tico.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vort said:

I don't think it's about either one. I think it's about getting worked up that an insidious evil is being foisted on us and our children, and those who have the temerity to point it out are met with, "Look at all these OTHER sins that are just as bad, and some even worse! Why aren't you getting all hot and bothered about THEM?"

 

You (in the generic sense) can get all hot and bothered by whatever you want... However that does not give you (again the generic sense) the right to attack me because I am not responding exactly the way you think I should.  Maybe I agree with the point but think there is a better way to handle it, maybe I agree but I got concerns I think are more pressing.  Or maybe I disagree... Either way judging me/others based on not having a lockstep response is the height of an unrighteous judgment.

Yes there is a problem with our social norms, and yes we are now in the minority on many issue... none of this turns us in to mindwashed sheeple that are going to respond to the issue exactly the same way.  Some people may yell and scream at the top of their lungs, others might withdraw, others might try to engage as low key disagreement, and others might vary their methods based on their circumstance at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

 "Now this great iniquity had come upon the Nephites, in the space of not many years;"

The fact that it came and came so quickly has always struck me as deeply sorrowful.
How would a people allow it to come upon them?
I think in part it comes from an eventual tolerance of sin.
Such and such isn't that bad because...
Violence isn't that bad because...
A lesbian kiss scene isn't that bad in Star Wars because...

I enjoy the following quote by Elder Boyd K. Packer:

Quote

President Boyd K. Packer also spoke of the recent trends of distorting tolerance:

“The virtue of tolerance has been distorted and elevated to a position of such prominence as to be thought equal to and even valued more than morality. It is one thing to be tolerant, even forgiving of individual conduct. It is quite another to collectively legislate and legalize to protect immoral conduct that can weaken, even destroy the family.

“There is a dangerous trap when tolerance is exaggerated to protect the rights of those whose conduct endangers the family and injures the rights of the more part of the people. We are getting dangerously close to the condition described by the prophet Mosiah [in Mosiah 29:26–27]” (“Children of God,” BYU Women’s Conference, May 5, 2006, 6).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share