From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #932 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Monday, December 23 2002 Volume 01 : Number 932 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 13:40:07 -0700 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] Return of Polygamy? (was: Church Discipline Articles) [MOD: In keeping with AML-List focus, please focus any responses on the literary dimension/connection of Chris's comments.] <<< FWIW, I haven't read Whelan's book either; however, I read a post on ZLMB recently by a Mormon bookseller who said that the book advocated a return to legal polygamy. The bookseller posted that in response to the quote in the DesNews article that Whelan said he "does not advocate the practice of polygamy." >>> I heard the Whelans speak at Sunstone, and from what I gather, their position is that people should never practice polygamy unless both the law and the prophet authorize it. On the other hand, the Whelans claim polygamy MUST be restored again before the Second Coming, and we should all be actively praying for its return. (I suppose I should be using past tense when talking about the Whelans, since Sister Whelan has now repudiated the project.) I would love to read a speculative novel about the return of polygamy to the LDS Church--and no, not through "Brother Brigham" appearing to some yahoo (with regards to D. Michael Martindale's novel). In many ways it could be the ultimate Mormon novel. Chris Bigelow - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 10:11:54 -0700 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Thomas Murphy Case [MOD: I'd like to encourage this part of the discussion to take on Thom's broader point of labeling and how it gets involved in the production/reception of Mormon art. I think the Thomas Murphy case per se is only of marginal relevance to AML-List; however, this broader question of labeling is, in my view, quite relevant.] >---Original Message From: Thom Duncan >> > >> >Um. Why am I getting anti-Mormon propaganda over AML-list? >> >> What you call anti-Mormon, I call it news. It's very >appropriate for >> this list as it has to do with academic literature coming into >> conflict with ecclesiastical authority. > >Then our definitions of news are pretty widely separated. >News would have at least a semblance of objectivity and an >*attempt* at balance. This announcement was no such thing. It >was purely issue-advocacy. i.e. propaganda. And since it was >antagonistic to the church, it is accurately labeled >anti-Mormon propaganda. Such labels do not serve open communication, imo. This is a big issue with me because I have been accused in the past of having written anti-Mormon stuff when it was never my conscious motivation. (My musical on Joseph Smith, of all things, got me in trouble while at BYU in 1973.) I know how easy it is for people who don't agree with a person to label him/her as an enemy, or anti-Mormon, thus stemming any further consideration of that person's writings. Thom - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 13:04:02 -0600 From: pdhunter@wt.net Subject: [AML] Card Nominated for Southeastern SF Achievement Award http://www.scifi.com/sfw/current/news.html Southeastern Nominees Named The 2002 Southeastern SF Achievement Award, administered by the online magazine scifidimensions, announced its list of nominees. The awards honor accomplishment in science fiction, fantasy or horror by individuals born or living in the southern United States. The awards are sponsored by Biting Dog Press, Atlanta-based Classic Comics and Galaxy Press, according to the Locus Online Web site. A full list of nominees follows. Novel =95DeepSix by Jack McDevitt =95Metaplanetary by Tony Daniel =95The Pickup Artist by Terry Bisson =95Shadow of the Hegemon by Orson Scott Card Short Fiction =95"The Chief Designer" by Andy Duncan =95"In Glory Like Their Star" by Gene Wolfe =95"Senator Bilbo" by Andy Duncan =95"Suspension" by Robert Wexler Life Achievement =95Robert E. Howard =95Jack McDevitt =95Andre Norton =95Manly Wade Wellman - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 11:48:11 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Books v. Film (was: Titanic) Kari Heber wrote: > Having seen _Saving Private Ryan_ I > can say that the opening scenes of battle were certainly intense, but fell > far short of conveying a complete sense of battle; either from an individual > or group perspective. > > The opening scene lasted ~20 minutes. Utah beach was not secured and safe > for landing for >24 hours. The movie just can't convey the sensation of > utter and prolonged fear, dread, exhaustion, elation of survival, and other > sensations that were experienced by the participants of this battle. This is the second person now who has objected to my claim that movies are a great way to experience something, based on the argument that the movie can't give me the full experience. Well, of course. Who thinks it can? (And books can?) I don't _want_ the full experience. The full experience would require me to wade through the smothering salty sea water as bullets pelted me, biting into my skin and sucking the life blood from me. But I do want something which can give me an intense experience which can act as proxy for the real thing, giving me a taste of it (emphasis on _taste_) so I can more fully appreciate what those who endured it went through more than I had before watching the film. I came away from _Saving Private Ryan_ having a better appreciation for what the previous generation sacrificed for my liberties. I can't imagine even hours and hours of detailed book-reading could make me feel what it's like to have those bullets constantly zinging past me, knowing that any one of them could end my life at any instance. _Saving Private Ryan_ did that for me. No other experience, film or book or pizza-induced nightmare, ever did that for me. Speilberg's twenty minutes did. Twenty minutes isn't long enough for you? Then watch the four-hour butt-killer film _Gettysberg_. That was the only other artistic experience I've ever had that made me feel like I was there in the midst of battle, standing with the Union army in the forest trees, as scores of Rebel soldiers materialized out of the fog, bent on my destruction. No book, no matter how lavish, gave me the visceral immediacy that these films did. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 00:09:03 -0700 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] R-Rated Movies - ---Original Message From: Rebecca Talley > > I very specifically remember sitting in Sacrament > Meeting in 1977 when a letter from President Kimball > was read over the pulpit to the congregation > counseling us to not view R-Rated movies. > > It has since been reiterated by various leaders, > including Prophets. Where is this documented? I can't find these references "reiterated by various leaders, including Prophets." We make records of conference and distribute them widely so that people don't have to rely on faulty memory or claims of messages that are "reiterated" by unnamed leaders and prophets. Frankly, I find it highly suspect that you have received this message that can't be found in public records and commandments to the church. Maybe it is a message that was given to those who needed it--if that is the case then I suppose that I haven't heard it for reasons sufficient for God. One of the things I love most about the church is that it is carefully structured to ameliorate abuses by those who would co-opt God's voice by giving us "messages" from God. I feel absolutely no compulsion to follow a commandment no matter how specifically remembered if I can't find a source. I don't have to rely on others to deliver God's word to me. > We've been taught in the scriptures that the prophets > are mouthpieces for the Lord. Right. The *prophets* are mouthpieces for the Lord. > I think, when it comes to R-Rated movies, or anything > else for that matter, it's a simple matter of > obedience to the counsels of the Lord. Right. So what have those counsels been? It seems to me that if we're to follow them, we should at least know what they are. > True, a movie rating may not be fair to a movie, but > is that what matters, or is it whether or not we're > willing to be obedient? Obedient to whom? Obey what commandments? I'm willing to be obedient, make no mistake. But I'm not willing to obey just anybody, even a lot of anybodies who have reached some cultural consensus. And don't forget that as people hoping to one day become like God, it is our responsibility to learn not only what the commandments are, but *why* they are. Obey blindly for a time if you must (and we all must from time to time), but it is important that we gain understanding as well. We have to evaluate and decide and question. It is as much our duty as saints as obedience is. > My family has not and does not view R-Rated movies. I > don't care what the justification is, we don't view > them. We rarely view any movies because they are of > such poor quality. Okay. Your choice. Your responsibility. Heck, it might even be the right thing for you. > I personally don't believe we can pick and choose what counsel we're > willing to obey. Okay. We shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose what we call counsel, either. If it is counsel of the prophets, then let us know where it is. If you think people should follow a message from God that is so important that you are willing to withhold livelihood from hard-working people in the name of God, then it would probably be helpful if you could articulate who said it, when, and to whom. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 08:53:21 -0800 From: Elizabeth Walters Subject: Re: [AML] R-Rated Movies On Wednesday, December 18, 2002, at 10:23 AM, r talley wrote: > I very specifically remember sitting in Sacrament > Meeting in 1977 when a letter from President Kimball > was read over the pulpit to the congregation > counseling us to not view R-Rated movies. > > It has since been reiterated by various leaders, > including Prophets. [snip] I just wanted to take a moment to respond to Rebecca Talley. I'm 24 years old, and I've never been to a church meeting where a prophet or general authority gave specific counsel not to watch R-rated movies. I've never been asked at a Temple Recommend interview if I watch R-rated movies. If such counsel is important to my salvation, wouldn't general authorities preach against watching R-rated movies as extensively as they do pornography? And if watching R-rated movies is such a sin, wouldn't it be fair to say that reading books that consist of the same material be just as bad? If the Book of Mormon were converted into a movie, it would surely get an R-rating. Does that mean we shouldn't read the Book of Mormon? I'm taking a class at BYU on LDS literature. Some of the books I have read, written by faithful members of the church no less, contained "R-rated" material. Let me give an example. I few weeks ago I read Orson Scott Card's _Saints_. The book has husbands visiting whores, a prominent Saint performing abortions, a young girl almost being raped, a mother deserting her children. I can safely say the book was 600 pages of wretchedness. From page 300 on I couldn't stop crying. I cried and cried for days, I was so effected by the book. For some days after reading the book, I thought I could not go on feeling as I did and remain a member of the Church. You are probably thinking that I should never have read such a book in the first place, and what is Orson Scott Card doing, ruining the faith of another?! Honestly, that is what I thought at first. When I talked to my husband about my feelings, he said I sounded like an Anti-Mormon tract. But now that I've had time to reflect on the novel, on my own beliefs in the Church, I'm not sorry I read the book. The book made me confront my fears and come to terms with them. I don't really have any answers to the questions Card raised in me, but I'm okay with that. But what does any of this have to do with R-rated movies? For one thing, I've watched my share of R-rated movies. I can think of one movie I saw recently that depicted such horrible things you would say my soul has forever been tainted by such filth. The movie I refer to is _Once Were Warriors_. It tells the story of a dysfunctional Maori family in New Zealand. The husband physically abuses his wife. An uncle rapes his thirteen year old niece, who then hangs herself from a tree in her back yard. These images are horrifying, yet they do not exist to encourage such behavior. On the contrary. _Once Were Warriors_ shows the damage such actions can do to a family. There is hope at the end of the movie as I there needs to be in my own life. I watch R-rated movies, and read "R-rated" books not because of the evil to be seen, but for the life-affirming values I can gain from such stories. If I shield myself from all R-rated movies, I might as well shield myself from life and live in a closet. If I stay in a closet, I will never be touched by evil, I will never be tempted, and I will never learn. Elizabeth Walters - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 08:32:41 -0800 (PST) From: r talley Subject: Re: [AML] R-Rated Movies - --- Shelley Christensen wrote: "I have two problems with the second argument.  First, when counsel is given to the youth of the church from the prophet, we adults expect them to follow it.  But it is highly unlikely for children to follow a commandment if their parents do not." You make a great point. If any of us think that we can tell our children to do one thing and we do something different and they'll still be obedient, we are sadly mistaken. The reason the DARE Drug Program was so ineffective in the schools is because too many parents were using drugs, alcohol, etc., and the program couldn't overcome the effects of what these kids were seeing their parents doing. It is the same with movies, books, etc. An example is so much louder than words. It is highly inconsistent to expect children to adhere to counsel from the Prophet that we, as parents, are unwilling to follow. Having Family Home Evening, Family Scripture Study, and Family Prayer are not commandments. However, obeying this counsel and implementing it in our homes will allow us to receive blessings we'd otherwise miss. Avoiding questionable material, R-Rated Movies, may not be contained in the "official scriptures," but one thing is for sure, when we obey counsel we receive blessings and when we disobey we lose those blessings. Rebecca Talley __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 12:16:33 EST From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Dutcher Movies News [MOD: The original post was sent by Andrew in ignorance of the fact that this was supposed to be confidential information. I'd like to ask all AML-List members to respect Richard's wishes by not spreading that information around.] I really, really wish you hadn't printed that. Some things are meant to be confidential, which is why the website is for potential investors only. I would have preferred for the plot and particulars of GOD'S ARMY 2 to remain a little more secretive, for now. Especially as the film hasn't been completely financed or filmed yet. Richard - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 12:14:46 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] R-Rated Movies r talley wrote: > True, a movie rating may not be fair to a movie, but > is that what matters, or is it whether or not we're > willing to be obedient? Yes, the fairness is what matters. Because... I don't quite understand why obedience is such a highly regarded virtue in our culture. It's bandied about in arguments as if it is intrinsically valuable all by itself. Once someone invokes "obedience," the argument is apparently over, at least in their minds. But I would like to ask, why? That's a fair question, isn't it? Why is obedience such a high-priority virtue? Now if you're talking about obedience to God, I'll grant you that. We should all be obedient to God, for the obvious reason that he is omniscient and perfectly loving. But obedient to other humans? I don't get it. Isn't that putting one's trust in the arm of flesh? It's true that prophets are the mouthpiece of the Lord, so when we obey a prophet, it's the same as obeying God. But not all the time. Only when the prophet is acting as the mouthpiece of the Lord. There are members of the church who are quite serious about believing that anything that drops from a General Authority's lips is the word of God. If you say that to their face, they might deny it, but I'm talking about what their behavior speaks about their attitudes, not what their facade tries to claim. The fact is, we are only obligated to obey church leaders when they are speaking under the inspiration of God. Which immediately begs the question, when are they doing that? Not every time they open their mouths, certainly. But not even every time they open their mouths in General Conference or when they put pen to paper for the Ensign. Otherwise, how do you account for the extremely offensive racial slurs and jokes that cropped up in General Conference speeches around the turn of last century? In the end, there is only one way to determine whether something a prophet or any other church leader says is of God or of themselves. You have to ask God and get your own confirmation. Joseph Smith taught that--so did Brigham Young, who specifically stated that one thing he feared was that the Saints would just follow the leaders of the church without thought. We have the _right_ and the _responsibility_ to receive our own confirmation from God on everything a church leader says before we go obeying it. Anything else is putting one's trust in the arm of flesh. So you can talk to me all day about the virtues of obeying God. But if you try to tell me that I'm obligated to obey any counsel from a church leader without first shifting my brain into gear and using it, without first finding out for myself if it's God's will or the man's personal bias, I will have to take issue with you. > I personally don't believe we can pick and choose what > counsel we're willing to obey. Actually, that's kind of the whole point of this life. And that's the whole point of labeling something counsel rather than commandment. "Counsel" by definition is advice that ought to be seriously considered, but hardly followed blindly. > As far as "art" contained in these kinds of movies, I > just don't buy it. Some of us do buy it. > Of course, this is only my opinion, but it's one I can > live with. And we can live with our opinion. Remember, you started this discussion by asking us how we justify seeing R-rated films. We're telling you. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 18:30:02 +0900 From: "Kari Heber" Subject: RE: [AML] R-Rated Movies Eric Russell said: [snip] The Sugar Beet hit it right on when they announced that the "Nephite pride cycle apparently doesn't apply to Utah Mormons." [snip] Boy, I wish The Sugar Beet had a search function so I could find this one article I have missed. ;) Kari Heber - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 12:57:12 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] R-Rated Movies r talley wrote: > Bishop H Burke Peterson: > I know it is > hard counsel we give when we say R-rated movies, and > many with PG-13 ratings, are produced by satanic > influences. > I repeat, because of what they > really represent, these types of movies, music, tapes, > and other products serve the purposes of the author of > all darkness. His unreasonable assertion automatically disqualifies his statement. All R-rated movies are produced by satanic influences? I can't even read this with a straight face. And then he goes on and contradicts himself: > Our standards should not be dictated by the rating > system. > President Ezra Taft Benson: > We counsel you, young men This opening line automatically disqaulifies this as counsel for me, all rhetorical attempts to make it seem so notwithstanding. > Elder Robert L Simpson: > Why not make some effort to find out something about > the next movie that will engage your family's > undivided attention for two and a half or > three hours and will probably cost you far more than > you contributed to the poor and the needy that month. Very wise advice. Then he goes and ruins it by saying: > It goes without saying that all X- and R-rated > movies are automatically eliminated. It does not go without saying. There are quite a few people who judge that certain R-rated films are worth their family's undivided attention. So it only goes after thoughtful pondering and praying. > Elder Joe J Christensen: > It is very unreasonable to suppose that exposure to > profanity, nudity, sex, and violence has no negative > effects on us. We can't roll around in the > mud without getting dirty. I agree. > It is a concern that some > of our young Latter-day Saints, as well as > their parents, regularly watch R-rated and other > inappropriate movies and videos. Okay, he's concerned. But where's the counsel here? Yes, we ought to be concerned about seeing movies that may contain questionable content. But that does not equate to forbidding to see them. > Elder John H Groberg: > Oh, brethren, please don't sell your precious > priesthood birthright for a mess of X- or R-rated > pottage. Remember, the sand castles we build on > the beaches of mortality, no matter how elaborate, > will eventually be washed away by the tide. Only > purity of hand, heart, and mind will allow us to > tap into the ultimate power of the priesthood to truly > bless others and eventually be able to build eternal > mansions more beautiful and lasting than we can > presently imagine. This is all very poetic, but there is a pattern forming here with all these pieces of counsel, a pattern that appears to me simply to be sloppy communication. When these fine brethren speak in words of principle, what they say makes perfect sense. But when they go and blanket-judge a whole category of films--the vast majority of which I'm sure they've never viewed--based on one fairly arbitrary characteristic, I get a feeling of uneasiness. When we do that with people, we call it racism. Why is it noble to do with art? To me, invoking the R rating in these examples of counsel is just a convenient short-hand for labeling films which are of inappropriate content. It's a shorthand the brethren are comfortable using because, in my opinion--and I think this is a crucial element of the issue--they don't know what they are condemning. How many R-rated films have these brethren seen? So how do they know all of them are satanic? How can they possibly know? It's just easy morality, as opposed to actually thinking and assessing--pondering and praying, if you will. If members of the church just follow the rating system--which ratings hardly arise from an inspired process--they don't have to ponder and pray and decide for themselves. This is a good thing? I guess it must be. The publishing arm of the church likes to encourage the same thing with books. Jesus said, by their fruits ye shall know them. I don't like these fruits: hundreds of filmmakers judged to have satanic motives based on a mere bias rather than evidence. > I don't think we, as adults, are any more capable of > erasing impure images from our minds than the young > men to which President Benson addressed his remarks. > Our minds, just as theirs, will never be the same. If > we've been counseled to "run" from such material, why > don't we? Why roll around in the mud? You are doing the same thing the brethren are doing: presupposing that R-rated is equivalent to impurity and mud. This is a presupposition I don't accept. I don't accept it based on personal experience. > Why pay money > and encourage filmmakers to produce such films? Why > not lift the bar and demand movies that rise above > what is usually available? Why not produce profound, > thought-provoking movies that don't wallow in the > filth, but rather inspire us? I'm all for this. In fact, some LDS filmmakers are trying to do just that. But I don't accept that what you're talking about is automatically equivalent to R ratings. > Maybe I'm too idealistic, and maybe my views are too > far removed from this list, but I just can't feel good > about watching or reading something that I have to > sift through junk to find something of value. You mean like sifting through worthless ore to find the gold nuggets? You mean like searching high and low for a pearl of great price, and when finding it, selling all you have to buy the field it's in so you can possess it? You mean like seeking after anything out there that is virtuous and lovely and of good report and praiseworthy? No, I know, we should have it all handed to us on a silver platter. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 20:42:12 +0900 From: "Kari Heber" Subject: RE: [AML] R-Rated Movies Shelley Christensen said: [snip] What would have been rated R twenty years ago is now PG-13. How can we continue to rate anything with a constantly changing scale? [snip] FYI. When it was realeased (1969) _Paint Your Wagon_ was rated PG, but when my DVD version arrived in the mail today it is rated PG-13 ("For thematic material"). Kari Heber - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:42:41 -0700 From: "Kim Madsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Free Books on Friday (My Christmas Present to AML) Wow, Stephen! I'll be Jeff Needle is just about slashing his wrists right now, but those of us on the Wasatch Front THANK YOU! (running off to check my schedule to see how I can fit an unexpected trip to Spanish Fork in...) Kim Madsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 10:45:47 -0800 (PST) From: r talley Subject: Re: [AML] R-Rated Movies > I believe that Rebecca's views are exactly what any > idealistic and > attention-paying young person must adopt in the > Mormon church. Wow, I haven't been called "young" in many, many years. Thank you, though, I'll take that as a compliment! Rebecca Talley __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:38:04 -0800 (PST) From: r talley Subject: RE: [AML] R-Rated Movies > Um. This is patently not the case as I tried to > express in my prior > post. I expect my children not to have sex--it is a > commandment. Never > mind what might be going on when my bedroom door is > locked. I am > telling them to follow a commandment that I myself > am not following. I have to point out that, in fact, we who are married have been commanded to "multiply and replenish the earth." Therefore, it is not at all contradictory to expect those who are unmarried to abstain, while we, who are married, to not abstain from sexual relations with our spouse. It is only a commandment to abstain from sexual relations if you are unmarried or are considering those relations with someone other than your spouse. Therefore, again, when we speak of R-Rated movies and the like, it is imperative that we set the example for our children to follow--hopefully it is a good example, but whatever example it is, they will follow it. If we expect our kids to follow counsel and be obedient, then we must also be willing to be obedient. Obedience does not mean we forego our free agency, only that we're willing to use our free agency to follow whomever, or whatever, it is we've chosen to lead us. Rebecca Talley __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 12:23:27 -0800 From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] R-Rated Movies - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Debra L Brown" > < to see, using my agency and discernment, until the day > (if it ever comes, which I doubt) when my bishop and > stake president ask me point blank if I watch "R-rated > movies" during my temple recommend interview. ===== > R.W. Rasband > > Actually, I was asked this in July of 2001. I was asked this once also. I gave him a look like, "That's not a standard question" and he said they were asking some additional questions just to get people thinking about things beyond the standard issues, or something like that. He stressed that my answer wouldn't have any bearing on whether I received my recommend. Susan M - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 13:13:06 -0800 From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] R-Rated Movies > The authoritative pronouncements to avoid R-rated movies teach a > sheep-like mentality that keeps us safe above all else from > becoming fully adult decision makers and exercising the free > agency that supposedly is the foundation of the religious belief > system itself. Not to in any way discount your experiences and views, I'd just like to say that my own experience has been vastly different, at least in respect to R-rated movies. I get so much pressure from people around me to see rated R movies, including occasionally from my in-laws, who are the only Mormons I regularly associate with in any kind of social aspect. (And my father-in-law was a bishop.) "Have you seen such-and-such? It's so good! You HAVE to see it!" "What's it rated?" "R...but it only has a little swearing in it." I pretty much don't even bother to explain that I don't watch rated R movies anymore. I just nod and say, "Sure." I've already posted why I decided to stop watching R movies, so I won't go into that again. I just wish the people I know would stop acting like I'm somehow incredibly deprived for not seeing movies they think are great, without considering that maybe I won't. There are occasionally movies I'd like to bend my rule for (although at the moment I can't think of what they were). But I tend to think it'd be like how it is for me with sugar--I was raised on junk food and became diabetic at the age of 23. I miss it--but I know that if I ate it now, it wouldn't taste that good to me, because I've lost the taste for it, after 9 years of not having any. The only movie I would bend my rule for is Schindler's List, which I still haven't seen, and most likely won't any time soon. I don't want my kids seeing it, and finding time to watch a 3 hour movie without my kids around is nearly impossible. (And the fact that it's going to be a brutal 3 hours doesn't make it any more appealing. :) Susan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 13:32:04 -0800 From: "Travis K. Manning" Subject: [AML] Re: R-Rated Movies > Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 10:23:36 -0800 (PST) > From: r talley Rebecca Talley > Subject: Re: [AML] R-Rated Movies > > True, a movie rating may not be fair to a movie, but > is that what matters, or is it whether or not we're > willing to be obedient? Good question. If a movie's rating is genuinely (subjectively/politically) misrepresented, are we supposed to ignore that? This a question I wrestle with, a question that keeps me from attending rated-R flicks. Hasn't the Lord also given us a brain to help guide us, with the Spirit as guide, to, as it states in D&C 9 to "study it out in your mind" then pray for guidance? Now, I'll be honest with regards to praying about rated-R films; I haven't done that. > My family has not and does not view R-Rated movies. I > don't care what the justification is, we don't view > them. We rarely view any movies because they are of > such poor quality. That's the family I grew up in. My mom used to tell us, "If it's got more than two damns and three hells, we're leaving!" Well, her standards have changed slightly since then, but she's still pretty discreet about what she views and reads. She used to moan and groan every time she heard a swear word--during the film--but you just have to know my mom. By moaning and groaning I think she focused unnecessarily on the negatives, which ended up being highlighted by her antics. I don't know, I think it's a personal (sometimes self-righteous) character flaw to want to always point out the negative. On the other hand, we are supposed to pass our own "righteous judgement" and make choices in this life based on what we've thought and prayed about. We are free to choose: 26. For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward. 27. Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness. 28. For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward. 29. But he that doeth not anything until he is commanded, and receiveth a commandment with doubtfulheart, and keepeht it with slothfulness, the same is damned (D&C 58:26-9). I never completely understood why Mom doesn't critique the scriptures as harshly for language as she does her books and movies (as I look now at the word "damned" above). However, that's not the point I'm trying to make. The power is in us to choose good things, for us, individually. We are all different, and that being said, there will never be consensus on how we "judge" art because we all come from different backgrounds, training, experiences, sins, or lack thereof. Mormons will never be a homogenized species of art consumers, so that's why we will ultimately need varying levels of artistic endeavors, to try and reach us all at our different perspectives . . . and I'm purposefully not saying different "levels" here because different "levels" implies that there is a top and bottom, an altruistic scale measuring art vs. non-art, and that art--as perceived most often by artists themselves--is at the pinnacle of the aesthetic, and therefore that art which does not measure *up* on the scale, is therefore not art of quality. I think many see the artist's aesthetic as an up-down, top-bottom thing and not horizontal and equal. When I think about experiences I've had in my life which have moved me toward wanting to see more challenging films (not necessarily "R" but many PG-13 and a few "R", and non-rated foreign films), these are the top few experiences that have provided me with a different Mormon perspective and aesthetic: (1) teaching in the public schools (I taught middle school English for a couple years in Salt Lake City) is a reality that perhaps breaks down certain inhibitions I had formerly acquired growing up with my parent's strict stance on "art" . . . because of the bad language in public schools (yes, Mormon kids swear), and confrontation with tough social issues I have dealt with on a *weekly or daily basis* (sexuality, religion, gangs, dysfunctional families, poverty, pride, and the general politics of education and of being a community figure); (2) while attending college I worked with troubled teens: teens in foster homes, teens in residential treatment facilities, teens just out of prision, teens in wilderness treatment programs, and as a substitute teacher for several Utah school districts (K-12, all subjects, severely mentally handicapped elementary age students to AP students, alternative high school to adult ESL). I consciously thought when I first began going into troubled teen work and education, wondering how my morals and ethics would be altered--and my perspective has been altered, but largely for the better, though it hasn't been a comfortable journey en route; (3) being an English and journalism major my views have tended to be more "open-minded" and willing to ask the hard questions, to really see and feel comfortable with examining multiple perspectives, realizing I don't have to make others' viewpoints my own. This is something my mom has difficulty doing, that is, feeling comfortable discussing disparate viewpoints, ignoring, in my mind, the prophetic admonition to use not only our heart as a guide, but also our might, mind and strength to make decisions; the Holy Spirit guides through heart and mind, employs spirit and body, and utilizes reason and intimation. > I personally don't believe we can pick and choose what > counsel we're willing to obey. A good question, one we're asked to ponder, think and pray about. . . . Travis Manning - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #932 ******************************