R-Rated Movies

[Still_Small_Voice]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

Neither.  Saving Private Ryan from what I've heard glorifies violence to a degree.  Even if it is about men saving another and fighting for their freedom, there is no need to show the graphic violence of war to portray such a message.  If the message is about the love of their fellow man or fellow soldier, why then try to take the focus off of it by showing the graphic horrendous effects of warfare to do so?  Graphic violence of that nature is not uplifting to me, and so there is not a good reason to go watch such a thing, even if there is another underlying message that may be good.

I have watched the movie Saving Private Ryan a number of times and felt it did not glorify violence at all.  What I saw was a small piece of the horrors of war and the price of freedom and what it costs.  Arlington National Park and many cemeteries around the world are full of people that paid the steep price of liberty which is blood and lives.  Sadly there are too many in our generation and the younger generations that are forgetting these stories and lessons. 

[mirkwood]

7 hours ago, unixknight said:

 

I ignore the rating entirely and go by content.

+1

[Guest MormonGator]

18 minutes ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

.  Sadly there are too many in our generation and the younger generations that are forgetting these stories and lessons. 

Yup. 

I had a talk with my Dad (Baby Boomer) about this a few days ago. I mentioned how spoiled the Baby Boomers- Millennials are in regards to war. My Dad made the very good point that his grandfather fought in WW I and then had to prepare his son (my grandfather, my Dads dad) to fight in WWII. I'm sure many, many families have the same type of situation. Two generations that had to live in such a horrific circumstance that, oh, 85% of living people can't fathom. Sad. 

[Guest]

I'd suggest a new rating system.  Here it is...

.

[unixknight]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Any quotation of prophetic counsel is an appeal to authority.

Of course it is, but not very useful when you're just kicking around the philosophical football in a friendly discussion.

1 hour ago, Vort said:

What reason would that be?

I admitted up front that I did not know the motives. That one was my best guess. If you have another, better motive for why people would find fault with those who try to abide by prophetic counsel, by all means let's hear it.

What I said earlier.  That there's value in some films that can be missed out on if they're arbitrarily dismissed because some entity that nether shares nor even respects my views rates them a certain way. 

55 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

You're not trying to say that, true.

But that is the inevitable result.

I don't see how that's inevitable at all.  I mean, if our worldviews differ in such a way that it's inevitable according your approach that's fine, you do you, Boo.  😉  I just truly can't comprehend how you can say it's LESS reliable to avoid an arbitrary, inconsistent and not-particularly-moral in the 21st Century rating system when I can apply my own discernment and experience, directly, to the task instead.

It seems to me you have a lot of faith in the MPAA.  Maybe I'm wrong about that, but it sure feels like it.

So am I going to get an answer to the question I posed in the post you quoted?

Edited May 21, 2018 by unixknight

[Vort]

2 hours ago, unixknight said:

3 hours ago, Vort said:

I admitted up front that I did not know the motives. That one was my best guess. If you have another, better motive for why people would find fault with those who try to abide by prophetic counsel, by all means let's hear it.

What I said earlier.  That there's value in some films that can be missed out on if they're arbitrarily dismissed because some entity that nether shares nor even respects my views rates them a certain way. 

So finding fault with people for trying to follow the prophets is justified if you think R-rated movies have value that is arbitrarily dismissed? I'm not following the logic.

[unixknight]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

So finding fault with people for trying to follow the prophets is justified if you think R-rated movies have value that is arbitrarily dismissed? I'm not following the logic.

I think it's a bit of a distortion to frame your position as being about "following the prophets" when at the beginning of the discussion you (and I as well) were quite clear this was nothing but an opinion.  Heck of an escalation, that.

Did you get a chance to read over the article I linked?  I think it does a decent job of putting that claim into perspective.

Edited May 22, 2018 by unixknight

[Vort]

35 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I think it's a bit of a distortion to frame your position as being about "following the prophets" when at the beginning of the discussion you (and I as well) were quite clear this was nothing but an opinion.  Heck of an escalation, that.

Well, at the risk of offending yet again -- and I do appreciate your even temper and unwillingness to take offense -- if someone avoids watching R-rated movies because of prophetic counsel, then from their perspective the issue is exactly about following the prophets. I can understand getting one's nose out of joint if the R-rated-movie-non-watcher proceeds to lecture about the evils of not doing things as he does. But in many cases, the mere mention that "I don't watch R-rated movies because our prophets have counseled against it" seems to bring out criticism and, ironically, calls of intolerance. It's just amazing to me that things can be turned around so obviously, yet not be apparent to those doing so.

38 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Did you get a chance to read over the article I linked?  I think it does a decent job of putting that claim into perspective.

I have read the article before. My impression rereading it today was the same as I felt years ago reading it the first time: It's an apologetic piece that takes a particular desired result and works its way backward to try to achieve it.

The bottom line is this: Ezra Taft Benson, an apostle and prophet of Jesus Christ, specifically counseled against watching R-rated movies.

There is no amount of mental or spiritual gymnastics that will make the above statement false. You can argue that Benson wasn't "speaking as an apostle" (which is clearly untrue). You can argue that Benson's teachings do not constitute "binding doctrine" (whatever that means). You can argue that Benson's teachings from the 1980s are outdated today (which IMO is baloney). You can argue that you can watch R-rated movies and still get a temple recommend (which is true, but irrelevant). You can argue any or all of those things. But you cannot argue that Benson didn't say what he very clearly did say -- which was that it's better not to watch R-rated movies.

If someone calls that "prophetic counsel", which it is, and determines to follow it, I don't see any rational (faithful) counter to that argument. The best one can really say is, "Yes, that was counsel from a prophet, but I am choosing to ignore it because I believe I know better than Benson did." I personally consider such an attitude dangerous, but it may not be false. Maybe you really do know better than Benson. And maybe your choice to watch this or that R-rated movie will contribute to your spiritual depth, insight, and sensitivity, and lead you closer to God than the brother who eschewed watching the movie because of its R rating. Since we are agents who get to choose how we listen and what counsel we take, that's our choice to make -- along with the consequences to ourselves and our loved ones because of that choice.

But why anyone should ever be shamed or otherwise criticized for avoiding R-rated movies in an attempt to obey prophetic counsel, I cannot fathom.

[mirkwood]

I like what Orson Scott Card had to say.

 

http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-r-rated-movie.html

[unixknight]

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

Well, at the risk of offending yet again -- and I do appreciate your even temper and unwillingness to take offense -- if someone avoids watching R-rated movies because of prophetic counsel, then from their perspective the issue is exactly about following the prophets. I can understand getting one's nose out of joint if the R-rated-movie-non-watcher proceeds to lecture about the evils of not doing things as he does. But in many cases, the mere mention that "I don't watch R-rated movies because our prophets have counseled against it" seems to bring out criticism and, ironically, calls of intolerance. It's just amazing to me that things can be turned around so obviously, yet not be apparent to those doing so.

We're all friends here.  I also appreciate that you don't seem offended either, and I also appreciate your efforts to be careful about separating the arguments in this thread from arguments you've heard elsewhere.

I get where you're coming from, and I'm certainly not out to change your view.  For me, it  just doesn't make sense to think that, if it really were President Benson's intention to counsel ALL members to blanket avoid all 'R' rated movies, then it seems to me that he'd have said so to a broader audience, (as opposed to the specific audience of Church youth at the time) that other Prophets would have reiterated that point (especially now.  The garbage you can find in theaters is a WHOLE lot worse than anything out in 1986.) And here's the real kicker...  The LDS church is a worldwide Church.  The MPAA is specifically American (other countries have their own systems) so why would he give a blanket counsel to all members, when so many live in parts of the world where the MPAA doesn't mean anything?  This was before the Internet so it isn't like somebody could go onto IMDB and check out the rating there.  It just doesn't  make sense to me that he would give a directive that only part of the Church membership would even be aware of.

So for me, it's not about knowing better than he, it's about trying to understand the context in which he said it. 

I trust my own discernment better than the MPAA's.  Period.  And for that reason it just doesn't make sense to me that any Church leader would expect me to do otherwise.  I think if the Church really wanted to set an arbitrary standard, it would create its own ratings system that would be universal.

[unixknight]

7 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

I like what Orson Scott Card had to say.

 

http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-r-rated-movie.html

Fantastic article.

[JohnsonJones]

2 hours ago, mirkwood said:

I like what Orson Scott Card had to say.

 

http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-r-rated-movie.html

I have not read Card, for many of the same reasons I do not read or watch many other things.  The materials he writes seem to be something that I personally would not find uplifting and perhaps even morally degrading to a degree.  Even if he is Mormon, it does not mean that he is an uplifting writer for me.  Obviously, his popularity among Mormons means that many (hopefully) DO find his works uplifting for Mormons, nevertheless, I still wouldn't account him as the same standard as the General Authorities of the church.

His article is his personal views and opinions, and he is right, there is NO commandment in the scriptures not to watch R-rated movies (and such a commandment could not be given to the world because the world does not rely on the MPAA rating system).  If he finds such uplifting, that is for him to decide.  We each are different and have different things that may be good or bad for us, uplift our spirits or downtrod them.  However, what is good for Card, may not be good for me and others.

 

PS: I, once again, would say, if it is NOT uplifting or appropriate for my children, it is NOT appropriate for me.  However, Card makes it obvious that this R-Rated movie he praises is NOT appropriate for children.  That signals red lights and alarms to me in his opinion piece there, at least in regards to my own take on what we should watch and spend our time on.  I know many here disagree with that my thoughts on the matter and would watch things they would not allow their children to watch (and this is common among Mormons, I think my take is probably very unpopular among Mormons in general), but to me, this is not something that inspires me to think Card's morals and mine align that closely, or as closely as to apply his own opinions on what is uplifting for him and his family to what is uplifting to me and my family.

What we have in the thread, mostly, are differences of opinion in regards to what we each feel is uplifting and what we do not feel is uplifting.  Luckily, there is no specific set in stone item today that we MUST follow or do.  We have advice, but in the decisions of what media to consume it is mostly left up to the individual (each of us) to decide.  What may be something one prefers, may be something destructive to another.

Edited May 22, 2018 by JohnsonJones