The Passion Recut: Mormon Friendly?

By: Bob Caswell - February 21, 2005

Mel Gibson has removed five to six minutes from his
monumental film, which is to be re-released March 11, 2005. Interestingly
enough, the film’s distributor, Newmarket, has no plans to release this version
on DVD or VHS. Rather, the idea is to release this version of the film each
year around Easter, an intriguing marketing concept. But that’s not really the
scope of this post, read on for some more details and the real discussion I
have in store for you.

As part of the ordeal of editing the film for its
re-release, Gibson took it to, your friend and mine, the Motion Picture
Association of American with the hope that the newly edited film would receive
the much lighter PG-13 rating. No such luck. The MPAA still thought it to be R
material. So rather than play the tug-of-war game like most producers do in
similar circumstances, Gibson has decided to release this new version
“unrated”. He thought that releasing it with the same rating might defeat the
purpose, as the goal of this endeavor is to bring out “a new version for new
audiences to discover and everyone to be inspired by”.

In my continuing attempt to understand the “other side” of
the rated-R dilemma within the Church, I’d like to peacefully invite those who
don’t watch rated-R movies to offer their thoughts on these unique
circumstances. As one who only loosely looks to the rating system for guidance,
I must say that the original version of the movie was indeed extremely gruesome
and could easily be inappropriate for many. However, I was torn by this factor,
as it was still a powerful movie that I wanted to recommend highly to friends
and family otherwise.

In my opinion, leaving the strange marketing concept behind
(i.e. no DVD release, but instead re-release every year), I think Gibson is
doing just what I would have hoped for. I am one who finds movie editing by
third-party companies to be less than desirable, as generally it is poorly
done, not to mention just a way to shift the responsibility of dictating appropriate
movie content from the MPAA to some other faceless group of people.

So from within this context, I am wondering what the general
consensus will be from the Mormon population of non-R watchers. I don’t mean to
point this out as a low blow, but this movie did technically “beat the system”,
as it will not be rated R. The same way many other movies, which are edited by
third parties, are not rated R. This is a booming industry here in Utah, but
never have I heard of these third parties resubmitting their edited versions of
R movies for PG-13 approval. So viewing of these edited films partially falls
under the category of “what we don’t know can’t hurt us”.

But the caveat not to be left out in the case of The Passion
Recut is that we do know that the movie would still be rated R, if it
were rated. So the question remains, will a Mormon non-R watcher watch this new
version of the movie? Would it do me any good to [potentially] actively
recommend this movie to non-R watching friends and family (after I see the new
version, of course)? Or do the same rules apply? Rather than have this question
be answered in a speculative way by those of us who do watch rated R movies, I
invite all non-R watchers to give us their thoughts.

We here at By Common Consent promise to respect your
thoughts whatever they may be.

190 Comments

  1. As Ebert says frequently, the rating system is completely broken. It is also inconsistent over time. There are R-rated movies from the 70’s that would almost be PG today. Three Days of the Condor is one example, with the exception of an F word, it is pretty harmless. Some people get shot, but the “action” is almost laughable by todays standards. Basically people shaking when they get hit as far as I remember.

    As far as the Clean Flicks thing, those will never get submitted to get a rating since CF doesn’t own the copyright. The consumer just has to trust the judgement of CF.

    Orrin Hatch is currently sponsoring legislation to explicitly legalize CF. Oddly his is still supportive of the DMCA, which outlaws software that could be used to achieve even better filtering of DVDs without having to make an edited copy or alter the original in any way. Such software could be used for much greater control over filtering and would be a boon to parents and Jar-Jar haters everywhere. Orrin needs to get a clue. My letters have always fallen on deaf ears.

    Oddly, when DVDs were first being marketed the ability to have filtering on a disc was often cited as a feature. As far as I know it has almost never been used by studios. This is pretty dumb, as they are leaving money on the table. They are however willing to do the opposite and release “unrated” versions of popular movies with the most graphics scenes that didn’t make it to the theaters re-inserted.

    Comment by a random John — February 21, 2005 @ 9:56 am

  2. Oh, of more specific interest to this discussion is an incident in which Chieko Okazaki mentioned having seen Schindler’s List during a talk at BYU. It caused quite an uproar. As it turns out she had seen it in Europe and had no idea what it was rated in the US. She found it disturbing that so many people were bothered that she had seen the movie, that people were so willing to judge her, and that so many people were obsessing over the ratings of various movies.

    Comment by a random John — February 21, 2005 @ 10:02 am

  3. Bob, this should be interesting. As someone who generally has the same attitude as you do about R-rated material, I’m not necessarily the person you want to hear from at this point, but I shall speculate nevertheless.

    Having been in that camp, knowing a movie would be R-rated if it were rated would be enough to avoid it. I mean, really, the Not Rated is just a cover for a “not as bad, but still R-rated.”

    But I really can’t tell for sure what R-rated movie avoiders think. I was recently told by a close friend of mine (an R-rated movie avoider) that I was mingling the philosophies of men with scripture.

    Comment by Rusty — February 21, 2005 @ 10:03 am

  4. First, I really back Random John. The content filtering or having two versions on a DVD was a real feature plug but has never been used. Its crazy when you consider in recent times that PG movies can do better than R rated movies economically.
    Only an industry like Hollywood would throw away potential profits for the sake of “art”.

    I think that knowing what it would be rated is an impact many will consider in choosing not to watch the re-release. I hope that they will consider the edits and revisions and consider the counsel given that its not R rated material we are counseled to avoid, but the things in the media that are not uplifting.

    As others have pointed out the MPAA is broken. We need to MPFiX it!

    Comment by Charles — February 21, 2005 @ 11:02 am

  5. Many of us “avoiders” simply do so because Church leaders have admonished us to avoid movies with that rating. (Yes, I know that John H. has written to the contrary, i.e. tried to “debunk” the idea that Church leaders want us to avoid R-rated movies.) For some of us, it really is that simple. I wasn’t always an R-avoider, but since marrying, my wife and I have both determined that we will “avoid.”

    Gibson’s approach might be a way to avoid “avoiding” for many of us to are just avoiding to be obedient, and not out of any kind of moral superiority to non-avoiders. The problem is that, because of Gibson’s attempt to get the cut version a PG-13 rating, as reported by Bob, we know that the movie would still get an R rating. So seeing it with this knowledge is still knowingly violating a request of Church leaders not to see movies with an R-rating.

    Comment by john fowles — February 21, 2005 @ 12:18 pm

  6. Bob, I think your caveat makes it in easy answer. If we didn’t know that it would have otherwise received an R-rating and all we knew was that “5-6 minutes was removed and is now Un-rated” I wonder what would be the reaction. I would imagine a bit different, but I’m not so sure.

    (Maybe this is an idea for a different post, but wouldn’t it be great if ALL movies followed Gibson and nobody used the rating system anymore? What would we have to do then?)

    Comment by Rusty — February 21, 2005 @ 12:34 pm

  7. I have never understood why active Church members who are R-rated watchers seem so concerned with us active members who are non-R rated watchers. It is not a very complex scenerio. And I know it has been discussed ad nauseum (I know I’ve misspelled that) here and other places. I think as imperfect people we actively attempt to live the most Christ-like lives we can. For some that means following what Chruch leaders have said about not watching R-rated movies. For others it means following other counsel (which could very well be more important counsel, if such a hierarchy is possible in margin counsel from Church leaders). It is not a Church doctrine, or policy. It is not most importantly a question for a temple reccomend. But each of us chooses the counsel we will follow b/c we are unable to follow all of it.

    As far as the question of the Passion. As a non-R-rated watcher I would not watch it. Obviously it is released un-rated b/c it would have recieved an R-rating. I see it differently from Clean Flicks, where they edit to specifically remove not along rating lines but along lines of what they feel to be appropriate for discerning viewers. Usually this leads to a film with less content then PG-13. But this is an easy choice for me as I have no desire to view the Passion. I’m not big into media depictions of the sacred and usually avoid them. I put the Passion in the same camp as Singles Ward, God’s Army. All movies I really don’t want to view (I know some are now scoffing at me placing SW and God’s Army with a movie as well done and artistic as the Passion–but oh well). Now if we were discussing the same scenerio with a movie like Collateral, well I might just come out differently….

    Comment by HL Rogers — February 21, 2005 @ 12:36 pm

  8. John, my wife and I have tried to consciously “avoid” PG-13 movies as well. I started doing this after seeing one too many PG-13 gore fest or sex fest or swear word fest. It simply offends the Spirit to see all that stuff for two hours in a movie theater.

    Having said that, it is a personal decision for me and my family. I can accept that there are perfectly loyal Latter-day Saints who watch R and PG-13 rated movies. But it makes my stomach sick to watch most of that stuff.

    I didn’t watch the Passion when it came out in the theaters but decided to order it through Clean Films. It was almost unwatchable even on CF. The Gospels don’t concentrate on the gore. They concentrate on the suffering, but we can imagine the suffering and gore without having to see it. I was reminded of Mormon and Moroni’s words about the terrible times they lived in. The people during those times became desensitized to the violence to the point where it no longer repulsed them. The Spirit of the Lord was completely lost from the land. That was how I felt while watching “the Passion” — a complete absence of the Spirit. I would recommend “The Greatest Story Ever Told” over “The Passion” any day.

    Comment by Geoff B — February 21, 2005 @ 12:39 pm

  9. In response to Rusty, and some others: I like the rating system. I realize it is imperfaect and horribly inconsistent but it provides an easy bright-line. Thus for me I can say, I don’t watch R-rated movies period and then I check PG-13 movies for their content on a movie by movie basis. True I miss some good movies but I also don’t subject myself to certain images that I personally don’t want to see. Perhaps I am using an axe where a scapel would do a better job but sometimes an axe is easier to use.

    Comment by HL Rogers — February 21, 2005 @ 12:40 pm

  10. John Fowles,

    I think Rusty is probably right… When writing this post, I honestly had the idea of withholding the information about the MPAA stating that they would still issue an R rating for the movie, if it were to be rated. I see now that the post would have probably been more interesting, if a mean trick. But indulge us here, John Fowles (& other non-R watchers), would you have considered the new edited movie had Mel Gibson not taken it to the MPAA and found it still to be in the R category? I mean, there are presumably many Mormons who won’t read a dozen press releases like I did to find out this information and who would, in turn, just consider the movie “edited and unrated”. So did I do you (and anyone who reads this post) a favor? Is this like the classic missionary story of Elders accepting a what-appears-to-be-safe drink, which actually has alcohol in it? Had they known, then of course they wouldn’t have accepted the drink. But since they didn’t know, they usually don’t necessarily regret it. Don’t read too much into the analogy, but what say ye? Would you have seen it under different circumstances? In my quest to recommend this movie to my fellow Mormons, did I just throw away my chance by revealing certain evidence?

    Comment by Bob Caswell — February 21, 2005 @ 12:50 pm

  11. “Now if we were discussing the same scenerio with a movie like Collateral, well I might just come out differently….”

    Wow, I appreciate the honesty here. Any other R movies that I should recommend studios re-release professionally edited and unrated? :-)

    Comment by Bob Caswell — February 21, 2005 @ 12:57 pm

  12. I think it’s interesting that some R movies appear to be “worth it” regardless of their rating. I wonder how far we can take that reasoning and still be consistent. Personally, I draw it pretty broadly, but I’m a hedonist.

    Comment by Steve Evans — February 21, 2005 @ 12:59 pm

  13. Random John said,
    “Orrin Hatch is currently sponsoring legislation to explicitly legalize CF. Oddly his is still supportive of the DMCA, which outlaws software that could be used to achieve even better filtering of DVDs without having to make an edited copy or alter the original in any way.”

    Hatch’s legislation, which has already passed the Senate, clarifies that filtering software (like ClearPlay) does not violate the copyright law. It doesn’t effect CleanFlicks at all. I think most would agree that CleanFlicks is violating copyright law and the Lanham Act. There is a case before a federal court in Colorado that should go against CleanFlicks whenever the judge gets around to ruling on outstanding motions.

    So as a non-R watching Mormon, I think I’ll get myself a ClearPlay DVD player and watch the movie.

    Comment by Nate Grow — February 21, 2005 @ 1:13 pm

  14. Nate G., does it bother you at all that you’re not watching the movie as intended?

    Comment by Steve Evans — February 21, 2005 @ 1:16 pm

  15. Bob asked: But indulge us here, John Fowles (& other non-R watchers), would you have considered the new edited movie had Mel Gibson not taken it to the MPAA and found it still to be in the R category?

    The short answer: yes. I think my earlier comment should express that clearly enough already.

    Comment by john fowles — February 21, 2005 @ 1:22 pm

  16. Somewhat. I think it’s important for our society to respect and preserve artistic expression in its original form. But I think it’s more important for people to be able to have access to quality entertainment without language, sex and violence. I like ClearPlay technology because it doesn’t permanently alter the original artistic work.

    The problem with ClearPlay is that it allows for overconsumption of graphic movies. If conscientious movie watchers all go out and buy a ClearPlay DVD player, there will be more incentive to make graphic movies. Meanwhile the makers of family friendly movies will suddenly find they have more competition.

    Comment by Nate Grow — February 21, 2005 @ 1:23 pm

  17. Good question Steve. I would be interested in an answer that has more than someone putting the word “art” in quotes.

    I sincerely want to understand Nate’s (and other non-R-watchers-but-edited-R-watchers) view. The rating system is a bunch of guys in LA that say “such and such is in the film, therefore it’s appropriate for such and such audience”. Fine. I understand that. Then with the editing of the film, ANOTHER party is involved saying, “the ’such and such’ was still too much for some viewers, we need to get rid of more ’such and such’” So now there are three third parties involved (prophets, MPAA, Clean Flicks) suggesting what is appropriate for you to watch. Wouldn’t it be easier and better for you to skip those last two, research for yourself what’s in the movies, make your own decisions whether it is in line with what the prophets deem as appropriate material, and go with that?

    Comment by Rusty — February 21, 2005 @ 1:26 pm

  18. Rusty, what if Church leaders have suggested that they would prefer us not to watch R-rated movies. What of making our own decisions then?

    Comment by john fowles — February 21, 2005 @ 1:29 pm

  19. Rusty,

    I think you’re right. We certainly shouldn’t just base our decisions off of what others think is appropriate or not. Many Mormons base their movie watching decisions soley off the ratings. That’s not what we are told to do. Try searching for “rated-R” in recent conferences. Leaders aren’t telling us to avoid rated-R movies. They tell us

    “choose only entertainment and media that uplift you. Do not attend, view, or participate in entertainment that is vulgar, immoral, violent, or pornographic in any way. Do not participate in entertainment that in any way presents immorality or violent behavior as acceptable.” (from For the Strength of the Youth pamphlet)

    I don’t think that ClearPlay represents a third party’s judgment in the same way that MPAA ratings do. ClearPlay has different settings which allow the viewer to choose how much violence, sex and language they are willing to see or hear.

    Comment by Nate Grow — February 21, 2005 @ 1:34 pm

  20. NateG, what do these sentences mean for you: Do not attend, view, or participate in entertainment that is vulgar, immoral, violent, or pornographic in any way. Do not participate in entertainment that in any way presents immorality or violent behavior as acceptable.

    When people argue that Church leaders are not telling us to avoid R-rated movies based on this change of language in the Strength for Youth packet (which used to say don’t see rated-R movies), I can’t help but wonder if those people actually think that Church leaders are, in essence, saying that some R-rated movies might actually be okay after all. It seems to me that what they are doing with this change of language, far from broadening the scope of what we should be willing to see, is narrowing that scope. In other words, they are saying that many PG-13 and possibly even PG movies are not appropriate rather than that some R-rated movies are actually appropriate after all. They have worded it this way, it seems to me, so that they don’t have to come out and say in a blanket statement not to see any PG-13 movies, because that would probably be a little draconian.

    That said, I believe that it really is merely a recommendation of our Church leaders, and not a commandment. Thus, everyone is at liberty to choose whether or not to see whatever they want based on whether they personally believe that the movie is debasing of higher Christ-centered thought patterns and lifestyle or not. So I agree with Geoff B. above that perfectly good Latter-day Saints might opt to see rated-R movies. What I can’t understand is the seemingly scoffing attitude of the latter against R-avoiding Latter-day Saints.

    Comment by john fowles — February 21, 2005 @ 1:44 pm

  21. JF: “What I can’t understand is the seemingly scoffing attitude of the latter against R-avoiding Latter-day Saints.”

    I can’t understand it either, because I don’t know what on earth you’re talking about. Where have you witnessed this attitude? That’s crazy talk.

    Comment by Steve Evans — February 21, 2005 @ 1:46 pm

  22. Isn’t the Strength of Youth pamphlet for the strength of youth? Are we saying that adults need to go scuffle through the YM/YW cabinet file to find instruction on what they ought to watch?

    Comment by Godot — February 21, 2005 @ 1:52 pm

  23. John,
    I read the quote from For the Strength of the Youth the same way. It says to me that we should be avoiding many PG-13s rather than watching more Rs.

    At the same time, it introduces personal judgment into the equation. The Brethren could have made things easier by giving us a quick and easy rule. Since it’s more of a subjective standard we shouldn’t be surprised that people interpret it in different ways.

    Comment by Nate Grow — February 21, 2005 @ 1:55 pm

  24. I realize this comment is besides the point of the both the post and the ensuing discussion, but I can’t help but wonder, given how the movie’s presentation of the Christ was (in my view) thematically undermined by Gibson’s relentless and explicit focus on His tortured, bloody, shredded body, if this presumably slightly less gorey version might not in fact constitute a better movie overall.

    Comment by Russell Arben Fox — February 21, 2005 @ 1:56 pm

  25. Godot,

    For one thing, if it’s good enough for the kids it’s good enough for the adults.

    For another, For the Strength of the Youth is representative of what the Brethren tell the adults as well. For example, take this quote from H. Burke Peterson in Conference, 1993.

    “stay away from any movie, video, publication, or music—regardless of its rating—where illicit behavior and expressions are a part of the action.”

    Comment by Nate Grow — February 21, 2005 @ 1:58 pm

  26. John, c’mon man, this isn’t a hypothetical, they already DO suggest that they prefer us not to watch R-rated movies (or at least we can read their comments that way, which for the most part, I think I do). However, like you said above, they have omitted telling us to not watch R-rated movies, probably for the reasons you provide (there are PG and PG-13 movies we should avoid). But I would hope you aren’t suggesting that they also think that there aren’t ANY R-rated movies worth watching.

    It’s this hardline, zero-tolerance of any good R-rated movie that is hard for me to imagine the prophets intend. If everyone said, “I generally avoid R-rated movies because they usually contain too much x, but there are a few that I have found to be very uplifting and I’m happy I watched them.” I would never talk about this topic again.

    JF, I think the “scoffing attitude” probably comes from a defensiveness for what we believe. When my good friend relates me to Satan as someone that mingles the philosophies of men with scripture, it’s hard for me to sit back and think, “well, I guess we just have different opinions.” I also think the defensiveness comes from the suggestion that we aren’t following the prophets in our decisions. Why do your ‘prophet quotes’ trump mine?

    Comment by Rusty — February 21, 2005 @ 2:00 pm

  27. Russell,
    You might be right, it could be a better movie overall. But again, doesn’t that depend on the viewer? Isn’t that what the whole R-rated movie debate is about? (or at least what we R-rated movie watchers would like it to be about).

    Comment by Rusty — February 21, 2005 @ 2:04 pm

  28. Because your prophet quote is totally stupid and it reeks like poo. That’s why John’s is better.

    Comment by hp100 — February 21, 2005 @ 2:12 pm

  29. “stay away from any movie, video, publication, or music—regardless of its rating—where illicit behavior and expressions are a part of the action.”

    Oh- crap! That means I can’t watch my favorite church movie- “Measure of a Man”- any more. They illicitly drink in that- it shows it right on the movie!

    “Ever notice how a beer can sweats? In tiny little beads…”

    Comment by hp100 — February 21, 2005 @ 2:15 pm

  30. “Do not attend, view, or participate in entertainment that is vulgar, immoral, violent, or pornographic in any way.”

    In my opinion, this is horribly worded. As hp100 pointed out, “in any way” pretty much means we can’t turn on the t.v., leave our house, or even watch Church videos. Good thing we don’t take things literally in this Church, oh wait…

    Russell, I think it could potentially be a better movie. But that may just be the utilitarian in me giving too much weight to the fact that the “good” coming from the movie is more likely to hit a broader audience.

    Comment by Bob Caswell — February 21, 2005 @ 2:29 pm

  31. “For one thing, if it’s good enough for the kids it’s good enough for the adults.”

    Nate, I’ve heard this philosophy before and have had a hard time understanding it, to be honest. I mean, aren’t there tons of things great for kinds but not necessarily appropriate for adults? Such as 8:00 bedtimes, rules about being home by a certain hour, holding hands while crossing the street, etc. Not to mention there are plenty of movies that are rated G and not appropriate for certain age groups. Does that mean they’re not appropriate for adults as well? Do you see the confusion? Some things are designed for kids (youth) and other things for adults. There’s nothing wrong with that.

    Comment by Bob Caswell — February 21, 2005 @ 2:37 pm

  32. Rusty, what I have trouble imagining is that our Church leaders think there are any “good R-rated movie[s].” If (1) the rating system were abolished so that everyone really did have to decide for themselves based on subjective application of the general guidelines such as those in the new For the Strength of Youth packet, or (2) GAs had never adopted the R-rating as the cut-off line and had simply taught that each of us should rely solely on our own moral compass and subjective aesthetic and moral judgments which movies and entertainment are appropriate or not, then I would certainly never default to the judgment of a board sitting in Hollywood or the profit-minded judgment of a corporation that illegally alters movies for my entertainment.

    Chances are, based on my aesthetic tastes and judgment, I personally would watch tons of R-rated movies, avoiding only the pornographic or psychopath-venerating ones and seeing all the violent and otherwise heavy-themed ones. Violence, especially war violence, in movies doesn’t bother me personally in the slightest. So, my subjective judgment would allow me to watch movies that, although they don’t bother me or keep me up at night, would actually be desensitizing me to these acts of violence. But my personal, subjective compass would cause me to avoid movies where adults or teens are having sex, children are being abused or exploited, or psycho-killers are wantonly killing, torturing, staulking, or cannibalizing.

    My own choices, therefore, would actually be just as arbitrary as our Church leaders’ choice to informally adopt the R-rating as an easy (albeit admittedly arbitrary) bright line indicator. But defaulting 100% to my own subjective taste is not where the recommendations of Church leaders stand. They have incorporated the R-rating as an easy bright-line rule in past statements. They have clearly expressed criteria (NateG quoted it above) which render a movie inappropriate for people striving to lead a Christ-like life.

    Comment by john fowles — February 21, 2005 @ 2:55 pm

  33. “…so that everyone really did have to decide for themselves based on subjective application of the general guidelines such as those in the new For the Strength of Youth packet…”

    “They have clearly expressed criteria…which render a movie inappropriate for people striving to lead a Christ-like life.”

    But John, what would you say to the idea that I stated above that the criteria was neither clear nor expressed well… not to mention that we’re again to the problem of subjecting ALL to youth standards. Don’t you think it a little odd that the Church would reveal standards for all through a pamphlet written to the youth? If this were a big enough issue to give all members council on, then we’d hear about it through the appropriate channels. Incidentally, this is also the problem with the Benson quote that is so oft quoted. Yes, the prophet said don’t watch rated R movies, but he was talking specifically to the young men in a priesthood session.

    Comment by Bob Caswell — February 21, 2005 @ 3:11 pm

  34. Bob, I understand the arguments against avoiding R-rated movies. If I understand it correctly, you specifically wanted to avoid those in this post anyway. My comments have been an explanation as to why I won’t see The Passion Recut with the knowledge that it would have still been rated-R if Gibson had sought a new rating but why I would probably see it absent this knowledge if it were truly “unrated” based on my own subjective judgment and aesthetic tastes.

    Comment by john fowles — February 21, 2005 @ 3:17 pm

  35. “My own choices, therefore, would actually be just as arbitrary as our Church leaders’ choice to informally adopt the R-rating…”

    But that’s just it, John, you’d be making your own choices. If they’re arbitrary either way, they may as well be yours. That, to me, is extremely valuable. Go watch, Gladiator, man, you’d like it.

    Comment by Bob Caswell — February 21, 2005 @ 3:23 pm

  36. Thanks, John, for sticking to the original idea of this post better than I have.

    Comment by Bob Caswell — February 21, 2005 @ 3:26 pm

  37. “Go watch, Gladiator, man, you’d like it.”

    If you’re going to watch a rated R movie, Gladiator would not be the pick. There are far better ones to consider (wasn’t there a BNL post on this topic? Bob, you want to cross-link?)

    Comment by Steve Evans — February 21, 2005 @ 3:34 pm

  38. Bob wrote But that’s just it, John, you’d be making your own choices. If they’re arbitrary either way, they may as well be yours.

    Why should I elevate my own subjective moral and aesthetic tastes over the admonitions of Church leaders who have stewardship over my efforts to assist in building the kingdom of God and establishing Zion? I can defer to the arbitrary lines that they draw, trusting that that will place me where God wants me. If they have decided to adopt an arbitrary line drawn by a committee in Hollywood, then that is an easy enough bright line rule to adhere to and feel comfortable in doing so. It doesn’t make it easy, however. I can attest to that. Most of the movies I really want to see end up being rated R. None of this would be necessary if Church leaders had not felt compelled by the state of society and the Saints’ choices in entertainment to speak to the matter and begin drawing arbitrary lines in the first place. Absent those arbitrary lines and guidance from leadership, I would likely be choosing to go places with my aesthetic and entertainment choices where the Lord would not have me because my aesthetic and moral compass might not be refined enough to discern the spiritual damage that some kind of entertainment might be causing me when there are no visible temporal detriments to that very entertainment.

    Comment by john fowles — February 21, 2005 @ 3:48 pm

  39. John says, “my aesthetic and moral compass might not be refined enough to discern the spiritual damage that some kind of entertainment might be causing me.”

    What kind of “spiritual damage” would this be? Apologies to the liberals on this blog, but, as I interpret your statement, it seems to be a very liberal idea. Namely, the idea that our environment can damage us internally, that our environment is responsible for our behavior. I don’t buy it. I think we have an agency that trumps all.

    I think one could spend all day every day watching the most violent movies for a years, and choose to respond to that exterior stimuli with kindness and gentleness. I believe that violent war vets are fully responsible for their own behavior. It is our choice how we respond to our environment.

    Bottom line – I am not convinced that *anything* external can do any real spiritual damage to us. The only way spiritual damage can occur is when we make unchristlike decisions.

    Comment by Godot — February 21, 2005 @ 4:10 pm

  40. Godot wrote I think one could spend all day every day watching the most violent movies for a years, and choose to respond to that exterior stimuli with kindness and gentleness.

    What do you make of BoM passages that relates the desensitization of the people such that the face of the land was covered in one continuous round of bloodshed and misery?

    Comment by john fowles — February 21, 2005 @ 4:17 pm

  41. They still had the choice to respond peacefully to the violence and I’m sure there were many people who did. Unfortunately, because of the wickedness of the people, most chose to respond as they did.

    I do not see the BofM identifying the desensitization as a *cause* of the extreme violence.

    Comment by Godot — February 21, 2005 @ 4:28 pm

  42. violence and sin caused desensitization which caused people to be immune from the voice of the Spirit, which caused further depravity and unspeakable atrocity (all of which the perpetrators are fully accounted for–I am not arguing that the perps somehow have an excuse for their actions because they made choices that led them to desensitization which led them to become hardened in their depravity).

    Comment by john fowles — February 21, 2005 @ 4:38 pm

  43. I don’t watch R rated movies.
    I have not seen ‘The Passion’ yet (and I won’t even if they cut it enough for a G rating).
    Here’s why:
    When I first saw the Church video ‘Lamb of God’ in between Conference sessions years ago it broke my heart into a million pieces. It still has that effect on me no matter how many times I watch it, so I am pretty sure that I couldn’t emotionally take seeing Christ suffer, as depicted by Gibson, on the big screen. Needless to say, I don’t need (or want) to see this movie for worship or entertainment purposes-even though I have been pressured by both camps.

    Also, after the fact, I heard from several LDS and non-LDS moviegoers that they regretted their decision to see the movie. It had negatively impacted them in ways that they had not anticipated…

    btw-I use several resources to help me decide whether or not to see a PG-13 movie when it comes out.
    Dr. James Dobson’s great Christian website family.org has a movie review feature that gives a pretty good overview of what you are going to see if you head to the theater.

    It’s here: http://www.pluggedinonline.com/

    Also, of course, is the Internet Movie Database found here: http://www.imdb.com/

    I find that melding the information from these particular two sites, I am usually able to get a pretty accurate read on what to expect from a particular movie and am able to make more informed entertainment choices for myself.
    Isn’t that what we are all supposed to be doing?

    Comment by Julie K — February 21, 2005 @ 4:52 pm

  44. Julie, I think that’s exactly what we should be doing.

    Comment by Steve Evans — February 21, 2005 @ 4:55 pm

  45. In my last comment, I meant “all of which the perpetrators are fully accountable for”.

    Comment by john fowles — February 21, 2005 @ 5:02 pm

  46. Here’s the “official” Top Ten Rated R Movie List:

    1. Gladiator
    2. Braveheart
    3. The Shawshank Redemption
    4. Good Will Hunting
    5. Amistad
    6. The Godfather
    7. Office Space
    8. When Harry Met Sally
    9. The Passion of the Christ
    10. Glory

    And here’s the link to the discussion for anyone interested:

    http://www.bobandlogan.com/archives/000151.html

    Comment by Bob Caswell — February 21, 2005 @ 5:38 pm

  47. For the record, I only think 5 of those 10 are really worth seeing, especially if you’re breaking a personal ethic to do so.

    Comment by Steve Evans — February 21, 2005 @ 5:40 pm

  48. Orson Scott Card makes a good argument for viewing certain R-rated films here. This one was new to me, although I wouldn’t be surprised to find that it’s already been discussed here.

    Comment by Mark N. — February 21, 2005 @ 5:45 pm

  49. Steve, don’t just leave us hanging… Give us your five; by all means, if we’re carefully working with others to help them break personal ethics, let’s make sure we give some solid recommendations. :-)

    Comment by Bob Caswell — February 21, 2005 @ 5:46 pm

  50. Hey, if anyone out there wants to watch Gladiator, Private Ryan, The Matrix, or Schindler’s List I’ll send you my British copies. They have British ratings, all of them the equivalent of PG13. So you won’t be watching R’s! Hooray! And I would trust the British censors over those in California any day, after all the latter come from a country that invented Shock and Awe. Such high moral standards! ;)
    Seriously, this conversation is appalling. If we could transport ourselves back 2000 years we’d be debating how many steps it is lawful to take on the Sabbath. What Pharisees! Don’t strain for a gnat and swallow a camel. Get off your arses and do some good. The movies you watch (provided they aren’t pornographic or psychopathic) are probably not much interest to Jesus. He’d have you worry about other things, methinks.

    Sometimes the Bloggernacle is just awful. But I love it because I too prefer to read such trivia than feed the poor.

    Comment by Ronan — February 21, 2005 @ 5:49 pm

  51. Bob,

    Suffice it to say that if you’re risking your eternal soul, you’d better make darned sure that you’re seeing Die Hard. Or Heat.

    Comment by Steve Evans — February 21, 2005 @ 5:51 pm

  52. Amen Ronan! You should become a BCC permablogger.

    …. check your email.

    Comment by Steve Evans — February 21, 2005 @ 5:52 pm

  53. Ronan-

    You’re right. This worrying about r-rated versus pg-13 is useless. Christ would much rather have us argue about whether or not he would be a democrat or a republican.

    Comment by hs100 — February 21, 2005 @ 5:56 pm

  54. To all avoiders out there, you should review our own Articles of Faith, and our admonishments to seek after good things. We cling to the concept of obedience as if there is some high water level of obedience that must be met to acheive exaltation, when we know that those who acheive exaltation must be “valiant in their testimony of Christ”. Perfection comes from the atonement of Christ, and to those who puff up their chests and expand their phylactories by declaring their obedience to an commandment never given or sustained, you expose the hyprocracy that Samuel referred to in his sermon to the early Nephites, and the emptiness that can accompany those who must be commanded in all things.

    We avoid a movie which for the first time depicts the atonement, the once in eternity event, that every prophet including Adam looked too, and we refuse to see it in order to boast of our obedience. We strain at the gnat and swallow an camel. The “avoiders” sound very similar to those who Christ addressed in Matthew 23.

    Have we become the Church of the Brethren, or do we remain the Church of Christ? This doctrine would have been so foreign to Brother Joseph and Brother Brigham. It seems that we as members of the Church have lost track of our original doctrines of seeking for the truth, and following the spirit.

    The rating system is a man made thing, R, PG-13, or PG, we should not allow ourselves to be lead into a false security in thinking that because it has an appropriate rating, or has been cleaned in a CF fashion, deporable content is deplorable content, regardless if it has been filtered. The Passion, is not deplorable, but depicts the suffering from the Garden to the Tomb, with the glory of the resurrection. Many LDS commentors have tried to put a negative spin on the movie having never seen it. According to the Avoider rule, Austin Powers is totally acceptable but viewing the atonement of Christ, is unacceptable and doing so makes one unworthy.

    Such belief systems create scenarios, such as BYU students going to Las Vegas to get married for the weekend only to have their marriages annulled on the following Monday, they kept the whole letter of the law, but in the end fell way short of the mark.

    Comment by Barry — February 21, 2005 @ 5:57 pm

  55. Steve wrote

    JF: “What I can’t understand is the seemingly scoffing attitude of the latter against R-avoiding Latter-day Saints.”

    I can’t understand it either, because I don’t know what on earth you’re talking about. Where have you witnessed this attitude? That’s crazy talk.

    Ronan just saved me a timeconsuming trip to the archives here, at Sons of Mosiah, and at T&S (and Nine Moons?) to find the answer to Steve’s (disingenuous?) question/assertion. That is, Ronan wrote

    Hey, if anyone out there wants to watch Gladiator, Private Ryan, The Matrix, or Schindler’s List I’ll send you my British copies. They have British ratings, all of them the equivalent of PG13. So you won’t be watching R’s! Hooray! And I would trust the British censors over those in California any day, after all the latter come from a country that invented Shock and Awe. Such high moral standards! ;)
    Seriously, this conversation is appalling. If we could transport ourselves back 2000 years we’d be debating how many steps it is lawful to take on the Sabbath. What Pharisees! Don’t strain for a gnat and swallow a camel. Get off your arses and do some good. The movies you watch (provided they aren’t pornographic or psychopathic) are probably not much interest to Jesus. He’d have you worry about other things, methinks.

    Since when is following Church leaders in the last dispensation of time straining at gnats, swallowing a camel, or sitting on asses?

    Comment by john fowles — February 21, 2005 @ 6:05 pm

  56. John Fowles, although I agree with you that the last few comments may have been a little harsh, I am still curious enough to ask you a question: Which Church leaders are you following? Can you quote any Church leader that was actually referring to you rather than to the youth of the Church?

    But don’t take me or anyone else here too seriously; I respect your choice to avoid rated R movies. And you’ve been the one on this post who has actually stuck with my attempt to understand those who do avoid rated R movies. I take comfort in the fact that you are comfortable admitting “…Violence, especially war violence, in movies doesn’t bother me personally in the slightest…” This, interestingly enough, warms my heart. From my own limited experience, I’ve found most Mormons who avoid rated R movies forgetting what does and doesn’t offend them, as this is no longer their decision. I’m glad you took the courage to prove me wrong.

    Comment by Bob Caswell — February 21, 2005 @ 6:24 pm

  57. I reserve the right to scoff at anyone, John, myself included, who engages in a conversation about technicalities that began at 12.18pm (your first comment) and continues through 6.05pm (your last comment).

    Comment by Ronan — February 21, 2005 @ 6:26 pm

  58. Bob, I guess you have me pinned down. Can’t think of any, so the admonition must just be in my mind.

    Comment by john fowles — February 21, 2005 @ 6:28 pm

  59. And John, are you not scoffing at me? Because if you’re following the counsel of the prophets in these last days then clearly I’m not. How righteous you are.

    Anyway, you’re not coming to my party anymore. And I’m ticked off at you: I’ve wasted so much time replying to you that I’ve had to cancle my trip to the soup kitchen I had planned for the evening. Whoops! There goes home teaching. Better keep blogging….

    Comment by Ronan — February 21, 2005 @ 6:35 pm

  60. Because if you’re following the counsel of the prophets in these last days then clearly I’m not. How righteous you are.

    ?

    Comment by john fowles — February 21, 2005 @ 6:37 pm

  61. I watched Schindler’s List-in German- in the BYU language resource lab in the JKHB some years back. It was unedited, but no r-rating since it was the German version. John- do you think that made a difference?

    Also, I watched several films in a German course at BYU (from Wim Wenders and Werner Herzog) that probably WOULD have been r-rated in America, had they been produced here. Luckily, they were produced in Germany, and hence had no rating. But how does that fare with the recommendation against viewing r-rated films? Is it OK because it was at BYU? Is it OK because it was related to education?

    Finally, some very good current German flicks (like Goodbye Lenin, for example) are not rated, but they would likely be rated “r” here in America. John- how could one justify watching those, when one is almost 100% sure that these films would be r-rated had they been produced here in America? (In fact, if you rent them at the video store, they may actually have an “r” rating stamped on them…)

    Comment by Jordan Fowles — February 21, 2005 @ 6:38 pm

  62. Can you quote any Church leader that was actually referring to you rather than to the youth of the Church?

    I could have sworn that this question was asked and answered on Times & Seasons months ago. For example, the following statement by Elder Joe J. Christensen was made in a CES/BYU Fireside Broadcast to Young Adults: “In addition to making a resolution that we will read only the best in print, it would be very beneficial if now we resolved not to watch even one R-rated or NC-17 movie, or television shows with questionable content. That may sound extreme, but I assure you that much of our future happiness and success depends on it.”

    Comment by Nat Whilk — February 21, 2005 @ 6:43 pm

  63. John- note that I am curious about your reaction, and am not trying to bait you or something… :)

    Comment by Jordan Fowles — February 21, 2005 @ 6:45 pm

  64. Barry,
    I understand what you are getting at, but I don’t think most R-avoiders are the kinds of people you are describing. I don’t think they avoid R-rated movies to feel morally superior than others, but rather because are trying to live according to what they interpret the prophets to be saying. I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. Likewise, I don’t think their rule allows the Austin Powers, but rather the opposite, which I think has been clear in the previous comments.

    Like I said before, I don’t think the problem is Avoiders’ decision to not watch R-rated movies. That’s a personal decision. What bothers the Watchers is the assumption we’re not following the prophets and silly remarks (like suggesting we’re like Satan because we mingle philosophies of men with scripture).

    Comment by Rusty — February 21, 2005 @ 6:47 pm

  65. Jordan wrote I watched Schindler’s List-in German- in the BYU language resource lab in the JKHB some years back. It was unedited, but no r-rating since it was the German version. John- do you think that made a difference?

    Not in the case of Schindler’s List since you knew that it was rated R. But authentically German movies wouldn’t fall under that category, unless, as you’ve noted, they carry the R-rating when on sale here. Just like I think that if Church leaders had never chosen to adopt the arbitrary R-rating as a reasonable bright line rule in their statements over the years, then I would certainly be watching all of the movies Bob listed above. Because they did, if I want to show goodwill and submission to them in their callings, then I feel that I need to respect that. I don’t have to like avoiding the R-rated movies that I want to see to feel that I should subordinate my subjective taste here to the admonition of Church leaders who are speaking in the course of their stewardship. But if you can convince me that they haven’t admonished against R-rated movies, then I would gladly give up this insane obedience and watch whatever I want.

    Comment by john fowles — February 21, 2005 @ 6:51 pm

  66. Rules according to Ronan:

    1) You’re not allowed to have a discussion about something Ronan deems silly for longer than six hours.
    2) Being at work and on the internet discussing gospel-related themes isn’t good enough. We must leave work and feed hungry people.

    If there are any more Ronan, we’d love to hear them.

    Comment by Rusty — February 21, 2005 @ 6:51 pm

  67. John- does the fact that I got it from the BYU language resource center (and watched it there) make any difference?

    Also, I distinctly remember that one the Wenders flicks we had to watch in my German Cinema class (at BYU) was labelled as “r-rated” by Blockbuster, since I had to rent it and watch it having missed class on the day it was screened at BYU.

    Does the fact that my BYU professor required watching it make any difference? And this film was clearly not rated in Germany- just on blockbuster’s shelves for some reason.

    And what about “Goodbye Lenin”? Isn’t that labelled as “R” on the shelves of American rental stores?

    Comment by Jordan Fowles — February 21, 2005 @ 6:56 pm

  68. And what about “Goodbye Lenin”? Isn’t that labelled as “R” on the shelves of American rental stores?

    I’m not sure. I bought my copy in Germany last summer. I think it is rated either 12 or 16–I’m not sure.

    Comment by john fowles — February 21, 2005 @ 7:08 pm

  69. I used to be an R-rated movie watcher. I have come to the conclusion that, for me, I don’t like the way I feel after watching some of those movies, even the ones that I thought I was being selective about viewing. I’m not saying that they all are bad. I made the decision that I don’t want to bring in entertainment into my life that drives away the spirit. That has had me cut out many potential PG-13 movies as well. I don’t know that I’ll never watch an R-rated movie again, but I will be more discerning than I have been in the past.

    As for The Passion of the Christ, I decided not to watch it because I feel that it would be too disturbing for me. I think that it is wonderful that a major movie has been made about Christ and the Atonement. It brings tears to my eyes to imagine what Christ went through for me, but I don’t feel that I could handle watching it. That is my own personal decision and those same images may not bother others as they would me.

    Comment by MKM — February 21, 2005 @ 7:10 pm

  70. In truth, Ronan is not to be faulted here. He is, after all, from England, where they don’t have an R-rating, so he is, and always has been, in the position to decide arbitrarily for himself based on his own subjective tastes and judgment which movies are appropriate for him, hopefully using the general guidelines set out about uplifting entertainment. Absent our Church leaders’ choice to rest with the R-rating as a good indicator of which movies to avoid, and indeed recommending the avoidance of such, we would all be in the same position as Ronan. In that case, I would have a much larger movie selection and would go rent The Last Samurai tonight.

    Comment by john fowles — February 21, 2005 @ 7:14 pm

  71. Rusty,

    You forgot the most important rule:

    #3 Rules 1-2 are deemed void if said conversation occurs at United Brethren.

    Comment by Ronan — February 21, 2005 @ 7:16 pm

  72. So is it OK to buy films like that in Germany, so long as we don’t know what they would be rated in rental stores and retail outlets across America?

    For example, if you look up Goodbye Lenin on Amazon.com, it clearly states that the movie has been given an r-rating. Does this mean that you will no longer watch it now? Or is it different because it’s a foreign film? Does it matter that the movie actually IS r-rated in America, or is it more important that you didn’t know at the time you bought it that it was r-rated in America? In other words, now that you know it is, will it make any difference to you?

    Comment by Jordan Fowles — February 21, 2005 @ 7:20 pm

  73. now that you know it is, will it make any difference to you?

    Probably, although this is an interesting case since I have already seen it so there is no need to protect me from the inappropriate drugs and sex that it portrays.

    Anyway, I should avoid it now that you have told me it is R-rated. That doesn’t mean I have to be happy about it, though (especially since I already bought it in Germany).

    Comment by john fowles — February 21, 2005 @ 7:31 pm

  74. John,

    By the way, I’m with you on avoiding r-ratings as a bright-line rule. But the line seems fuzzy to me when you get into foreign films like Goodbye Lenin (sorry to harp on that one over and over, but it is a good example of the point I am making, especially since you own it!). If it would be OK to watch in in Germany prior to the pronouncement of some American beaurocrat that it should be “R”, then why would it not be OK to watch afterwards?

    I’m with you on American films, though, if for no other reason than my parents taught me not to watch r-rated movies so I refrain to honor them. Well, that and Andrea would kill me if I did watch one… (knowingly- that originated in America and was not available at BYU).

    Speaking of which- you still have not answered regarding whether or not the fact that the film was available from BYU makes any difference to you.

    Comment by Jordan Fowles — February 21, 2005 @ 7:37 pm

  75. I have no problem disregarding the “ratings”; I’m willing to see any movie I desire. I do not desire to see the Passion, whatever its rating or edition. I do not need to see Jesus with flayed skin. I’ll stick with King of Kings, thanks very much.

    Comment by D. Fletcher — February 21, 2005 @ 7:40 pm

  76. “Many of us “avoiders” simply do so because Church leaders have admonished us to avoid movies with that rating.”

    No, you pick and choose what you want to do based on a selection of what Church leaders have said. And that’s fine, but I get frustrated when people try and make it all sound so “simple.” The reality is a small handful of Church leaders have specifically spoken out against R movies, almost all Seventies. The only prophet to do so was Ezra Taft Benson, and that was in a talk specifically addressed to the Youth.

    Again, it’s just fine if you choose not to watch R rated movies based on advice from a Church leader. But let’s also acknowledge the Ensign articles that have admonished members to not trust or use the rating system, or acknowledge statement’s like Elder Perry’s, said in General Conference, that tell us we don’t need a man-made rating system because we have the spirit of the Lord.

    Saying “I don’t see R rated movies because Church leaders say not to” is just away of marginalizing those who don’t - implying that they don’t listen to Church leaders. People are so desperate to hold on to cherished beliefs, even if incorrect, that they conveniently ignore statements from leaders that dispute what they believe.

    Comment by John H — February 21, 2005 @ 7:47 pm

  77. Speaking of which- you still have not answered regarding whether or not the fact that the film was available from BYU makes any difference to you.

    It doesn’t make any difference to me. Each person will be held accountable for the choices that they make regardless of whether some BYU prof in the German dept. decided that Schindler’s List could be seen in German in the HLRC or not. The question is whether our Church leaders have admonished against R-rated movies or not. If they have, then it doesn’t matter what Professor Lyons says. Of course, their admonshment is only inspired advice or a recommendation, so as everyone on this thread has aptly pointed out, everyone can make their own decisions on which movies to watch. But for me personally, I don’t see why I shouldn’t defer to the bright-line rule that Church leaders prefer both out of trust and respect for them in their callings and because I have sustained them in those callings.

    This R-rated movie thing is only an issue in the US because in other countries, as I have noted above, members are left to choose based on their subjective judgment what movies are or are not appropriate. I am sure that very few members shun very few movies under those circumstances. Perhaps it is an unfortunate thing that Church leaders adopted the R-rating as a useful bright-line and admonished against it because it sets up the double standard Church-wide where people in England or Germany can see any movie they want, hopefully but not necessarily guided by the “spirit of the law” with regards to avoiding the content of a film with an R-rating, while many Church members in America feel obliged to defer to Church leaders’ arbitrary choice of the cut-off rather than their own subjective taste in making that decision.

    Comment by john fowles — February 21, 2005 @ 7:49 pm

  78. Forgive me, Jordan, but this is what is crazy: It’s not OK to watch a R-rated movie unless you watch it at BYU, or if you buy it overseas. Surely there must be a better, less Pharasaical way of doing this. I have a good idea of when a film is not suitable: would I be ashamed if the Saviour saw me watching this? In the case of the Passion, Schindler’s List etc. the answer is an honest no.

    And John, British Mormons do have a rule: we try to avoid “18’s” which are usually the equivalent of “R” but not always. Luckily, all the good films I want to watch are not “18″. So here’s a question for you: would you watch The Last Samurai if you were still in Oxford, knowing that you were a member of a Ward that had a native interpretation of the R-rule? Actually, don’t answer that. I’m tired of this.

    Comment by Ronan — February 21, 2005 @ 7:50 pm

  79. John H. wrote No, you pick and choose what you want to do based on a selection of what Church leaders have said. And that’s fine, but I get frustrated when people try and make it all sound so “simple.” The reality is a small handful of Church leaders have specifically spoken out against R movies, almost all Seventies. The only prophet to do so was Ezra Taft Benson, and that was in a talk specifically addressed to the Youth.

    Are you implying that because only a handful of Church leaders have expressly said the words “rated-R” and the rest haven’t said anything at all that those who didn’t say anything think/thought it was okay to see R-rated movies? It seems like any support you can muster in support of R-rated movies is an argument from silence. Have any Church leaders said “I know that a handful say that R-rated movies are inappropriate, but don’t worry about ratings and just judge for yourself which movies are appropriate or not”? Absent something like this, the silence you refer to doesn’t even indicate a difference in views on the issue, much less the idea that R-rated movies are okay.

    Comment by john fowles — February 21, 2005 @ 7:53 pm

  80. John H. wrote But let’s also acknowledge the Ensign articles that have admonished members to not trust or use the rating system, or acknowledge statement’s like Elder Perry’s, said in General Conference, that tell us we don’t need a man-made rating system because we have the spirit of the Lord.

    Such statements made by Church leaders cannot, I believe (and of course, you are free to disagree), be interpreted as a green light on any rated-R movie; rather, they are saying that PG-13 and PG movies might similarly be inappropriate, not vice versa.

    Comment by john fowles — February 21, 2005 @ 7:56 pm

  81. Ronan,

    I am sorry to hear you view this as “pharasaical”. I find it interesting. I refrain from watching such movies because my parents expect it. I know I don’t live with them anymore, but it seems an easy way to honor them and their wishes.

    I do think the line is very blurry with foreign films, and I do admit that this fuzziness makes the whole bright-line r-rated rule seem sort of silly. I mean- it seems ludicrous to think watching a movie would be OK in Germany when it was first released, but then become taboo suddenly when released in the USA because some decision-maker decided to rate it “R”.

    But who has time for movies anyway? :)

    Comment by Jordan Fowles — February 21, 2005 @ 7:56 pm

  82. Johh H. wrote Saying “I don’t see R rated movies because Church leaders say not to” is just away of marginalizing those who don’t - implying that they don’t listen to Church leaders.

    This just isn’t true. At least not for me.

    Comment by john fowles — February 21, 2005 @ 7:58 pm

  83. John Fowles:

    Elder Perry’s statement is very clear and unambiguous. He doesn’t say we should only trust the rating system when it refers to R rated movies. He says we don’t need to use a man-made rating system. Period. End of story. If you say you won’t see R rated movies, you’re using a man-made rating system and therefore ignoring the counsel of Elder Perry. As I’ve said, I don’t have a problem with that, since I’m also ignoring the counsel of Elder Wirthlin, who did say we shouldn’t see R rated movies.

    What continues to puzzle me is your insistence that there’s no inconsistency, that there isn’t any conflict between such positions. It seems very plain to me when I look at the statements (and I’ve looked at them all - at least all published ones) that the ambiguity and the inconsistency is there. It’s abundantly clear the Brethren have no clear-cut policy on this, and it also seems clear that in recent years they’ve moved even farther away from singling out R rated movies. If the only prophet we can cite who did single them out died a dozen years ago, that doesn’t exactly strike me as great evidence of a consistent policy.

    Let’s look at this another way. I honestly can’t think of anything else on this planet from the entertainment industry that the Church trusts. Mormons take such immense pleasure in hating the media and denouncing it at every given turn. Why do you think the Brethren believe that the industry got this one thing right?

    We are expected to use Latter-day Saint standards and values when we make any other decisions regarding media - be it books, music, TV, etc. Why do you think we gain absolution if we use the rating system when it comes to movies? I just can’t fathom that Church leaders would put their trust in a system created by the same motion picture industry that they rail against almost every General Conference.

    Comment by John H — February 21, 2005 @ 8:07 pm

  84. John: Perhaps it is an unfortunate thing that Church leaders adopted the R-rating as a useful bright-line and admonished against it because it sets up the double standard Church-wide where people in England or Germany can see any movie they want, hopefully but not necessarily guided by the “spirit of the law” with regards to avoiding the content of a film with an R-rating, while many Church members in America feel obliged to defer to Church leaders’ arbitrary choice of the cut-off rather than their own subjective taste in making that decision.

    Can you not see how CRAZY that is?! So, Ronan and John sit down to see a movie. It happens to be R-rated in the US but not in the UK. Both agree it looks like a fine film, but because he’s American John has to leave the room whilst Ronan can sit back and enjoy the movie.

    Would God be the author of such a CRAZY system? If I were you I would take the R-rating as a guideline not an absolute and carefully research movies that might be R but only because they tackle certain issues/events. But I’m not you.

    Anyway, I’m going to put the Matrix in the DVD player and kick back for the evening, but I’ll be sure to watch the British version.

    CRAZY.

    Comment by Ronan — February 21, 2005 @ 8:12 pm

  85. John H. wrote If the only prophet we can cite who did single them out died a dozen years ago, that doesn’t exactly strike me as great evidence of a consistent policy.

    This is very good. If only you could convince my wife of this, I could rent the Last Samurai tonight. I’m serious about that. Down with the ratings! (That is, if our Church leaders really haven’t recommended against seeing R-rated movies, but I have to confess I’m still a little skeptical about that).

    Comment by john fowles — February 21, 2005 @ 8:12 pm

  86. Ronan-

    Would it be less crazy for John to leave the room because he is “honoring his parents” and striving to not disappoint his wife? Because those are the reasons I would use.

    Comment by Jordan Fowles — February 21, 2005 @ 8:15 pm

  87. BTW, John, Samurai is a great film and remarkable for the fact that the love story has absolutely no sex involved. Why’s it R? Because it portrays war pretty realistically (but without much gore). Uncle Ronan approves. Tell Alli to let you watch it!

    Comment by Ronan — February 21, 2005 @ 8:18 pm

  88. Ronan, of course I can see tha absurdity of the dilemma you pose. But what I am supposed to do if I want to show good faith towards Church leaders who recommend against seeing R-rated movies? If I see the R-rated movie based on my own judgment of what is appropriate for me, am I saying, in effect, that I know better than the Church leaders? Am I affronting their stewardship with relation to my spiritual well-being? I mean these questions sincerely. If I am to defer to them and their judgment based on their callings and stewardship, then, yes, the result from your absurd hypothetical follows, and you are the lucky one in the equation. It is not a matter of being pharisaical, I don’t think.

    Comment by john fowles — February 21, 2005 @ 8:18 pm

  89. Jordan:

    My parents told me that to vote Conservative was to follow the Church. They were just wrong! :)
    I too honour my wife, but I don’t obey her if I think she’s wrong. double :)

    Comment by Ronan — February 21, 2005 @ 8:20 pm

  90. “This just isn’t true. At least not for me.”

    John Fowles, I believe you but still wouldn’t mind further explanation. You continue to say things like “…I don’t see why I shouldn’t defer to the bright-line rule that Church leaders prefer…” What, like the three members of the seventy that have spoken out on this? You see this as enough to create a blanket statement about “what Church leaders prefer”? What if I were to produce a dozen Church leaders who “preferred” something entirely different?

    And in answer to this question, “Have any Church leaders said ‘I know that a handful say that R-rated movies are inappropriate, but don’t worry about ratings and just judge for yourself which movies are appropriate or not’?” The answer is a definite “yes”, that is, depending on your definition of Church leaders. I’ve known plenty of bishops and counselors who have seen rated R movies and lived to tell the tale. They have all been “Church leaders”. So is it only members of the seventy (as John H. pointed out, prophets and apostles steer clear of this) that can dictate uncoordinated “bright line” rules for the whole Church? Or can local leaders do that too? I’m confused, what do I do when my Church leaders seem to have conflicting view on official “bright light” Church policies? Hmm… Kind of makes you wonder where the official policy came from… Do we have a proclamation on this? An origination? Where did it start if it’s so “bright”?

    Comment by Bob Caswell — February 21, 2005 @ 8:21 pm

  91. What if I were to produce a dozen Church leaders who “preferred” something entirely different?

    Then the issue would be settled and I would revel in a stack of R-rated films. But, alas, this is not the case.

    Comment by john fowles — February 21, 2005 @ 8:24 pm

  92. John Fowles:

    I’m not here to tell you no Church leader has ever said not to R rated movies. The statements are out there - but you’ve got to hunt for them.

    My only point is that I think it’s funny how deserately some people seem to cling to the “no R rated movies!” mantra. Some people aren’t into movies that much, and not seeing something because of a rating isn’t a big deal. Other people just find the rating system to be a decent guide for them. I’ve honestly got no problem with either. But some people are so insistent they refuse to believe the scarcity with which leaders have actually addressed the R rated issue.

    It just seems like there are other statements, nearly as infrequent, that people could also latch onto if they wanted. How about President Kimball and President Joseph F. Smith’s statements condemning hunting for sport? I don’t see people dragging those out, demanding all Latter-day Saints stop hunting.

    If someone wanted to believe dancing was evil, they’d sure find plenty of support among late-nineteenth century leaders. And there probably aren’t a lot of statements from leaders specifically condoning dancing, either.

    The Church is 175 years old - there’s lots of statements addressing lots of different cultural oddities over the years. It’s actually more than possible that in the next 10 or 20 years, the rating system will disappear and will be replaced by another system.

    Comment by John H — February 21, 2005 @ 8:25 pm

  93. John H:

    I’m having trouble tracking down this alleged statement by Elder Perry telling us not to use the rating system (as opposed to not trusting it exclusively). I certainly see nothing that would indicate that Elder Perry thinks that those who don’t see R-rated movies are ignoring his counsel. If you’re not just blowing smoke, could you please post the specific quote to which you’re referring?

    Comment by Nat Whilk — February 21, 2005 @ 8:28 pm

  94. John H. wrote How about President Kimball and President Joseph F. Smith’s statements condemning hunting for sport? I don’t see people dragging those out, demanding all Latter-day Saints stop hunting.

    The ironic thing with this observation is that I was raised in that type of home. My father was 100% against sport hunting based on those statements and based on his own experience growing up in rural Utah killing animals with his dad for sport and not need for meat. Similarly, as you can imagine, based on other statements by Church leaders, R-rated movies and caffeine were strictly forbidden in my home. All I am trying to say with this is that some Latter-day Saints are following the words of Church leaders very strictly. The R-rated movie issue falls into that category.

    As to dancing, I think that might be a bad example because I think it was pretty much accepted among nineteenth-century Latter-day Saints.

    Comment by john fowles — February 21, 2005 @ 8:30 pm

  95. John H,
    As much as I agree with you, you seem to want it both ways. You are suggesting that the only thing that bothers you is how Avoiders assume we Watchers aren’t following prophetic council. But then you say, “I don’t see people dragging those out, demanding all Latter-day Saints stop hunting. I think John F’s point is that he’s not demanding us to not watch R-rated movies. He’s just saying he doesn’t do it himself and we can make our own decisions.

    Comment by Rusty — February 21, 2005 @ 8:35 pm

  96. “It’s actually more than possible that in the next 10 or 20 years, the rating system will disappear and will be replaced by another system.”

    Probably even sooner… As soon as Jack Valenti dies, I see the system getting totally revamped. And I doubt the man is going to live for 10 or 20 more years. But this is just my opinion based on the information I’ve gathered while writing two different research papers on the matter.

    John Fowles, the Last Samurai is a great movie. I’ll let you borrow my copy as soon as I get it autographed by… how many Church leaders would you need to approve of it before you’d pop it in?

    But seriously, if your wife has a problem with this more than you do and you’d like to honor her standards, I can see that as very noble of you. Not to pry, but would she be against me inviting you to my house to watch the Last Samurai with me? For the record, the invitation is always open, just give me a couple days notice, and BAM! We’ll watch whichever of the great R movies you’ve missed up until now.

    Comment by Bob Caswell — February 21, 2005 @ 8:36 pm

  97. Not to pry, but would she be against me inviting you to my house to watch the Last Samurai with me?

    I don’t know–I’d probably be too afraid to ask. But she probably wouldn’t really have a huge problem with that.

    Comment by john fowles — February 21, 2005 @ 8:37 pm

  98. /need to finish my thoughts before posting/

    So what I’m asking is what really bothers you John H? The assumption that we’re not following prophetic council or their demands of us to not watch R-rated movies?

    Comment by Rusty — February 21, 2005 @ 8:37 pm

  99. Nat Whilk:

    Here’s Elder Perry’s quote:

    “We do not need man-made rating systems to determine what we should read, what we should watch, what we should listen to, or how we should conduct our lives. What we do need to do is live worthy of the continued companionship of the Holy Ghost and have the courage to follow the promptings that come into our lives.”

    L. Tom Perry, “That Spirit Which Leadeth to Do Good,” Ensign (May 1997): 70.

    It’s available on the Church’s website, at the end of the page.

    Comment by John H — February 21, 2005 @ 8:38 pm

  100. It is very tempting, but what would that mean I am doing with regards to the counsel we have been given? That is the problem I am having here. I don’t want to disregard the counsel that our leaders have given us, but I agree that the R-rating is arbitrary and, for me, pointless if it is a war movie or some other movie merely R-rated because of violence and/or profanity.

    Comment by john fowles — February 21, 2005 @ 8:39 pm

  101. Can we all take a moment to reflect on how AWESOME the bloggernacle is? John F’s last post almost brought a tear to my eye. The fact that we’ve been having this discussion for what, 8 hours, it seems like we’re actually getting somewhere.

    Comment by Rusty — February 21, 2005 @ 8:42 pm

  102. John H:

    This is all you have? This quote does not say that we are not to use rating systems, and any inference from this that Elder Perry thinks those who avoid R-rated movies are ignoring his counsel is wishful thinking, at best.

    Comment by Nat Whilk — February 21, 2005 @ 8:43 pm

  103. “It is very tempting, but what would that mean I am doing with regards to the counsel we have been given?”

    John Fowles, I would not be opposed to the idea of calling your wife to ask if you can come over and play… Assuming she says yes, though, we still need to work with your uncomfortableness of how this leaves you with the counsel we’ve supposedly been given. Would it make any difference that by supposedly hurting the feelings of three members of the seventy (don’t worry I won’t tell them), you’d be following the counsel of other members of the Church? I have been branch president twice and am I’m sure we could get others who’d recommend good R movies to state their respective leadership callings to give you enough of a base to feel like there are a substantial number of “Church leaders” who are with you on this one. What do you say?

    Comment by Bob Caswell — February 21, 2005 @ 8:46 pm

  104. Rusty, you are an awesome dude. That last comment indeed made the thread worthwhile.

    Nat, you’d be hard-pressed to find a GA quote saying that rated R movies are OK, but it stands to reason that we should not overly rely on ratings systems set forth by sources outside of the Church. I think John’s quote is pretty good!

    Comment by Steve Evans — February 21, 2005 @ 8:48 pm

  105. Elder Perry says, “We DO NOT NEED man-made RATING SYSTEMS TO DETERMINE what we should read, what we should WATCH, what we should listen to, or how we should conduct our lives.” (emphasis added)

    Nat Whilk says, “This quote does not say that we are not to use rating systems”

    Huh? Am I missing something between the lines or what?

    Comment by Bob Caswell — February 21, 2005 @ 8:52 pm

  106. Unfortunately, Bob, most of us weren’t members of those branches you presided over as a missionary. As much as that experience might have made you feel like a General Authority, some of us consider their stewardship to be a little bit broader than yours.

    Comment by Nat Whilk — February 21, 2005 @ 8:53 pm

  107. Rusty:

    Good question. To put it bluntly, I get worked up too easy as it is. I just shouldn’t let things bother me. That said, what does get under my skin is the portrayal of issues like this as if they are cut and dry, black and white. “The Prophet said not to see R rated movies, so why do you” is often the refrain.

    It’s not just this issue, either. A lot of people in the Church like to portray themselves as only being the way they are because “the prophet said so.” They seem unwilling to acknowledge that, for the most part, the real reason they believe what they do is because it fits their personality and lifestyle and comfort zone. They selectively emphasize certain Church leaders (Bruce R. McConkie, Joseph Fielding Smith, Ezra Taft Benson, etc.) that will back up their worldview. They do the same with certain issues (sexual morality, word of wisdom, media and entertainment, etc.) and seem to suggest these are the issues we really need to worry about in life. Leaders like Hugh B. Brown, David O. McKay, or Howard W. Hunter, who tended to be more moderate in their views, are de-emphasized. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that David O. McKay, the longest serving Church leader ever (counting apostleship and presidency) had almost no books of his teachings out until this year. On the flip-side, every single one of Bruce R. McConkie’s books are in-print and available from Deseret Book.

    Don’t misunderstand - I’m not crying conspiracy. I just think the majority of Church members tend to have a certain perspective, and that perspective then takes precedent, regardless of “truth”. I think publishers like Deseret Book then cater to that perspective by publishing what sells. Hugh B. Brown’s books don’t sell, Joseph Fielding Smith’s do. Put more simply, I think our conservative culture determines what we believe more than the voice of God. And since Church leaders are born and bred in this same conservative culture, they by and large are not immune from its influence.

    Comment by John H — February 21, 2005 @ 8:55 pm

  108. Yes, Bob, you’re definitely missing something.

    To say that we do not need X is not to say that we should not use X.

    Comment by Nat Whilk — February 21, 2005 @ 8:57 pm

  109. Steve,

    If movies are “art” and the director wants control of it, then they should control the experience. Certify the theaters it can be shown in, make sure that people don’t (or do, if desired) talk during it, and give refunds if the film is ruined by a dim bulb, poor sound, or it breaks. Once they are willing to put it on a plastic disc and sell it to me to be viewed in my home in less than ideal circumstances, on a device with pause, rewind, and fast-forward buttons, then they are trading some of the control over the experience for money. Purists are free to watch a film in their house as they will. I am should also be free to choose how to experience it. If I choose to deprive myself of the director’s vision in my own house, that is my loss or gain. Look at what is happening in the music world, in which the Gray Album by DJ Dangermouse is basically a bastardization. While it isn’t the intent of the original artists, is it not also art? Should it be disallowed (or less valid) because it wasn’t the intent of the original artist?

    In a more film centric example, fully capable filtering software should provide the ability for someone to remix a movie to create something new. Want to see Pulp Fiction in chronological order? Why shouldn’t you be able to? Same goes for the Godfather movies. Want to eliminate Jar Jar and Ewoks from your favorite movies? That is a new and valid experience. To call these tools mere censorship (not saying that you have, but other have) shows a lack of creativity on foresight.

    Finally, if I buy a paperback book, shouldn’t I be free to pull the pages out and put them back together in any order or degree of completeness that I like and then read the book?

    Comment by a random John — February 21, 2005 @ 8:58 pm

  110. Nat,
    What in the name of Marduk and Ishtar does this mean:
    To say that we do not need X is not to say that we should not use X.

    Comment by Ronan — February 21, 2005 @ 8:59 pm

  111. Rusty: agreed. In fact, I’ve never had more fun writing a motion to compel as today. (The motion really is coming along despite the time I’ve spent on this discussion and the T&S discussion on proxy baptisms today.)

    Bob, I don’t know. Like I disclosed at the beginning, it has only really been since I’ve been married that I’ve been an avoider. And yet I’m not blaming that on my wife. I was raised never to see R-rated movies and yet watched them all the time at friends’ houses anyways. That wasn’t based on an evaluation of different Church leaders statements and deciding to follow some rather than others; rather, it was pure disobedience both to parents and to Church leaders. Now, I can regret the fact that some Church leaders have hooked onto the arbitrary R-rating as their measurement all I want, but it doesn’t change my awareness that those Church leaders intended those statements to be guiding principles. I like the Elder Perry statement but have a hard time bringing myself to believe that it means that R-ratings are okay after all. I can’t avoid the conclusion that it means that we need to further filter our viewing past merely avoiding R-rated films.

    Comment by john fowles — February 21, 2005 @ 8:59 pm

  112. Er…so Nat, when President Hinckley says we don’t need pornography, he’s not saying we shouldn’t use pornography? If we don’t need something, it seems to go without saying that we shouldn’t use it. Or, to put it in positive terms, if we should use something, wouldn’t we by definition need it?

    Comment by John H — February 21, 2005 @ 9:00 pm

  113. Ronan:

    Which word don’t you understand?

    Comment by Nat Whilk — February 21, 2005 @ 9:00 pm

  114. John H., I really like Hugh B. Brown. Admittedly, I haven’t read a lot from him, but I have a hard time thinking that he put less emphasis on these things than other Church leaders.

    Comment by john fowles — February 21, 2005 @ 9:02 pm

  115. Oh, puhleeze, John. You are really grasping at straws. Are you seriously contending that President Hinckley couches his criticism of pornography only in terms of not “needing” it?

    If we don’t need something, it seems to go without saying that we shouldn’t use it.

    Right. So if you don’t need R-rated movies, it goes without saying that you shouldn’t use them.

    Comment by Nat Whilk — February 21, 2005 @ 9:03 pm

  116. Just because I don’t “need” my Lucky Charms, doesn’t mean I “shouldn’t” eat them. Does it?

    Comment by Rusty — February 21, 2005 @ 9:05 pm

  117. “Unfortunately, Bob, most of us weren’t members of those branches you presided over as a missionary.”

    Well, Nat, if we’re to use statements from seventies at BYU firesides to govern how the whole Church should live, then I find my stewardship just as valid as theirs. The point is that I was using this to illustrate how silly it is to assume that since someone has a particular calling, they have the authority to speak to the whole Church even if the whole Church somehow wasn’t a part of the BYU crowd that night (i.e. no different than me holding you accountable for not being at my sacrament meeting when I told you - even though you weren’t there - to not use the rating system).

    “To say that we do not need X is not to say that we should not use X.”

    Interesting nuance… Thanks for spelling it out for me.

    Comment by Bob Caswell — February 21, 2005 @ 9:07 pm

  118. “Well, Nat, if we’re to use statements from seventies at BYU firesides to govern how the whole Church should live, then I find my stewardship just as valid as theirs.”

    The Seventies are called General Authorities for a reason. The “BYU firesides” are CES firesides that are broadcast to all the Young Adults of the Church (who aren’t busy watching R-rated videos, or otherwise). Elder Christensen has repeated this counsel in General Conference.

    Comment by Nat Whilk — February 21, 2005 @ 9:13 pm

  119. Nat, your logic is a bit faulty, as Rusty’s already pointed out. A better way of putting it, perhaps, would be to say that just because we shouldn’t rely exclusively on ratings systems doesn’t mean that they are useless.

    JF: you should read An Abundant Life, an excellent book of Hugh B. Brown’s memoirs. Truly excellent.

    Comment by Steve Evans — February 21, 2005 @ 9:13 pm

  120. I think the oversimplifications in this argument need some pointing out. Everybody is making valid points but a lot of people are speaking past eachother. Moreover, we’ve divided the camp here into R-avoiders and R-watchers, and some false assumptions have come along with the division.

    There is more than one kind of R-avoider:

    There is the R-avoider who watches anything pg-13 but nothing R. I think everybody here would agree that this would be following the letter of the law and not the spirit, since many pg-13 movies are intended to be crude/vulgar/slightly pornographic etc.
    There is the R-Avoider who also avoids almost all things PG13 and doesn’t watch any movies with an F-word, a gunshot, even a hint of a shadow of something that would offend the spirit (and I think we could all agree that the spirit is offended easily).
    Then there is the R-avoider like myself. I have seen less than 10 R-rated movies, and with almost all of them I fast-forwarded through parts. (self editing?) At the same time, I avoid almost every other movie as well because most just aren’t good movies (content wise, entertainment wise, acting-wise, etc.)

    But there is more than one kind of Mormon R-watcher as well.

    There are the R-watchers who avoid any counsel from church leaders that watch whatever they feel like and disregard whether there is pornographic/violent/vulgar content.

    There are the R-watchers who only see R-rated movies if they believe the message is greater than the accompanying bad content, but who also keep the standards of the church in mind and try to be selective and wise in their choices.

    And I think there are many more “types” or “categories” however you want to see it. The biggest difference may be this:

    There is a scale of “spiritually inspiring message” vs. “amount of negative content.” R and PG13 avoiders tend to think that “No amount of negative content is worth a good message.” That may be because we believe we can find the same message in a more kosher package. R-watchers tend to say, “YEs there was lots of (gory violence, or nudity, or sex scenes, or swearing) but the message was so important and it makes me want to be better”

    So we have people who are willing to tolerate a certain amount of bad content in order to get the message of a movie, and there are those who think the message isn’t worth it.

    As Joseph Smith said, we are taught true principles and then we govern ourselves. The STrength of Youth Pamphlet teaches principles. How we govern ourselves is up to us. I personally avoid most movies, because i think watching them would not be living those principles.

    I feel like “If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report, or praiseworthy, we seek after these things” means the following: that if i find myself having to justify watching something, then instead of seeking something virtuous, i’m looking for virtue in something which is neither lovely, nor of good report, nor praiseworthy. THe R-rating line is helpful to some members of the church who may need set rules to live worthily and i think they should not be criticized for holding to it. But i feel like more important is the question of are we seeking for something that is innately good, or seeking for good in something that innately isn’t. That’s the principle i go by, and it has led me to avoid R-rated movies, even though i believe there are exceptions.

    The Mirth

    “Moderation in all things except for moderation”
    “Every Blanket statement is false”
    “there are always exceptions”

    Comment by The Mirth — February 21, 2005 @ 9:16 pm

  121. “Nat, your logic is a bit faulty, as Rusty’s already pointed out.”

    I thought Rusty was agreeing with me that not to need X is not the same as being obligated not to use X.

    Comment by Nat Whilk — February 21, 2005 @ 9:16 pm

  122. Nat, looks like I got confused because you say some contradictory stuff. At one point, you said “So if you don’t need R-rated movies, it goes without saying that you shouldn’t use them.”

    Comment by Steve Evans — February 21, 2005 @ 9:22 pm

  123. I do think that Bob’s points are very persuasive.

    Comment by john fowles — February 21, 2005 @ 9:22 pm

  124. Nat, I’m sorry, but I still don’t follow. Something as big as submitting my movie-going experience to a third-party American censor (run by Hollywood no less) indirectly endorsed by the Church constitutes a situation that could be potentially as important to me as say, the Word of Wisdom or Tithing, if it were truly something we as members need to live by. Such principles are not introduced by a seventy at a BYU fireside. If the Church has a certain stance about something - and it’s important - there would be no wishy-washy unorganized, decentralized, cryptic way of distributing information on said stance.

    Comment by Bob Caswell — February 21, 2005 @ 9:23 pm

  125. I like what The Mirth has to say except that it makes me feel bad about myself because I clearly fall into his/her first category of R-avoiders, and that supports Ronan’s argument that I am a pharisee.

    Comment by john fowles — February 21, 2005 @ 9:25 pm

  126. The Mirth,
    EXCEPTIONS!!!! That’s the whole point! We’re not saying everyone should watch all R-rated movies regardless of content, we’re just saying that what the church leaders have said leaves room for exceptions.

    Comment by Rusty — February 21, 2005 @ 9:28 pm

  127. John Fowles, if it’s any consolation, I’m not so convinced that you’re a pharisee.

    Comment by Bob Caswell — February 21, 2005 @ 9:29 pm

  128. By the way, I know we’ve touched on this, but the Church would have a hard time issuing any sort of centralized, official statement on R rated movies, as it would then be branded what it never wants to be: An American Church. Think about it. I bet there are plenty of brethren who get frustrated when it’s brought up in broadcasts that are crossing borders, as more than half the Church is confused (and in some instances, outraged) by their supposed need to submit to Americanism.

    Comment by Bob Caswell — February 21, 2005 @ 9:44 pm

  129. I’m sure this will be extremely popular with the masses:
    A cavalier attitude does not change the fact that choices still have consequences.
    And, with all due respect, disregarding/subverting your wife’s counsel/position in the movie choice department is *not* a step in the right direction.

    Comment by Julie K — February 21, 2005 @ 11:11 pm

  130. Julie K, I think I agree with most of what you said… One thing I want to point out, though, let’s not forget that some choices have GOOD consequences… The word “consequences” gets such a bad rap in our Church.

    Comment by Bob Caswell — February 22, 2005 @ 12:18 am

  131. I also think the Americanization of it has something to do with the church’s current position on the matter. I remember one of my companions in Brazil who spent a considerable amount of time trying to tell a member that she ought not be watching a movie because it had something called an “R” rating in the United States. I don’t think the woman ever comprehended what he was trying to tell her.

    Comment by Godot — February 22, 2005 @ 2:29 am

  132. One more thing on the “not watching the movie as intended” front, though I think that the discussion has moved on. I think there is a valid distinction to be made between “art” and “entertainment”. This has as much to do with the attitude and wants of the viewer as the intention of the “artist”. If I want to sit and be entertained for two hours without being offended I see nothing wrong with that.

    It is probably odd that while I am a big defender of filters and the like I have never used any other than one of my own I worked on briefly as a hobby project.

    Comment by a random John — February 22, 2005 @ 10:00 am

  133. I must apologize for the tone of my comments. I truly am not trying to be preachy, honest! I just feel very strongly about this subject and cannot stop the feeling that all perspectives should be considered. I did link from M*, so blame them for my intrusion over here! :)

    I think that the commenters who support the idea that the Church leadership does not really have a firm position on this are not really looking very hard at the evidence to the contrary.

    With the assumption that Church publications are under the direction of, and an extention of, Church leadership, I did a search of the Gospel Library at lds.org using ‘r-rated movie’ as my request. I got 500 matches. Admittedly, not all of them mention R rated movies specifically, but the tenor was clear in each reference. Not one suggested that we should dabble and experiment with how much questionable content we could safely expose ourselves to. Everything I skimmed was explicitly advocating staying as far away from those influences as possible.

    We all get to choose what we watch and do not watch. That’s a given. No debate there.
    What we base those choices on is what is in question here, I think.
    Each of us comes to our own conclusion on where to draw the line using our own judgments and preferences.
    But the point that I really want to make here is that we can’t always know what the consequences of our choices are going to be beforehand.

    For instance, we don’t know how a movie is going to affect us until after we watch it, and then it is too late to press rewind or delete and un-experience the experience, so to speak.

    For instance, how do you guys know that you are not, by your viewing choices now, inadvertantly feeding the monster that is going to become your midlife crisis in ten or twenty years?
    You don’t. You can’t.

    Am I the only one who senses danger here?

    Comment by Julie K — February 22, 2005 @ 10:53 am

  134. Julie: “Am I the only one who senses danger here?”

    In all honesty, I don’t sense the danger that seems to possess you on this topic. If we’re talking about avoiding pornographic materials, I’m with you. If we’re talking about keeping children away from negative influences, I’m with you there, too.

    I think you are very correct to point out that we cannot predict how a certain film will affect us. Thus the burden is on us to do our research and to examine ourselves in this respect. That’s important, and shouldn’t be cast aside.

    And don’t worry about intruding at all — as the signs say on our chapels, Visitors Welcome!

    Comment by Steve Evans — February 22, 2005 @ 10:58 am

  135. Julie, if you want to base avoidance on old GA quotes, that’s fine.

    But I must disagree with “we don’t know how a movie is going to affect us until after we watch it, and then it is too late.” Unless you’re talking about basic reactions like crying, being startled, etc.

    I do not understand how this is possible. I do not understand how a movie can make me do or will something against my will. That is not possible.

    And what movie watching has to do with a mid-life crisis is beyond me.

    Comment by Godot — February 22, 2005 @ 12:11 pm

  136. Since the obvious intent of avoiding R-rated movies is to stop ourselves from being influenced by bad examples, I submit that our own scriptures are sadly in need of a rating system, perhaps on a chapter-by-chapter basis. Any instance of bad behavior, even though we might actually learn something from it, should probably be excised. Who knows how it might affect the weak-minded among us? They might be tempted to follow in King Noah’s footsteps, after all. When Moroni mentions the depravity of the Nephites, and how their wickedness exceeded that of the Lamanites, who were feeding their female captives the flesh of thei