Sons of Adam

I love people. Nature’s good, and animals are pretty sweet, but of all God’s creations, humankind is my favorite. Niagara can’t hold a candle to a newborn baby. There isn’t a Kodiak bear alive which is more fascinating than the most wizened, wrinkled old Jewish New Yorker. And not even the most resplendent sunset can compare to a couple in love.

I didn’t always have this crush on our species. In fact, I wasn’t even aware of it until the past couple of years, and even then it took until the last few months to really start blossoming. Thinking over it, I’m finding that my interest in humanity has a handful of anchors: first, I’m a writer, and writers write about people. You have to crawl out of a whole series of convoluted hoops to not write about people, because everything you say comes from a human perspective: yours. People are intensely fascinating. It boggles my mind that there can be so many autonomous beings around the globe, each with their own rich and deep set of memories, each with their own hopes and aspirations, each with their own web of relationships. It’s so cool.

Second, I’m an artist. Now, it’s fairly easy to make art that isn’t about humans at all, and most of mine thus far has been like that — photographs of flora and sidewalks and such, 3D renderings of landscapes or rooms, drawings of sunsets, etc. Putting humans into art is perhaps one of the most difficult things to do, because we’re highly attuned to what they ought to look like, and if the representation is even just a little bit off, our human detectors start blaring. But of course it is possible, and when it’s done well, it’s amazingly powerful. Humans are beautiful. Even the “ugly” ones. Hair, noses, eyes, arms, feet — poignant, even striking. There’s something so wonderful about humanity that I can hardly stand it.

Third, and perhaps the overriding theme here, I believe we’re the children of God. And while I certainly didn’t go around thinking, “Well, we’re the children of God, so therefore I ought to think humans are beautiful and grand and fascinating,” I can’t help but think that the inherent godhood within each of us is a large part of what has got me so smitten by the human race. Sure, humanity can sink to depths almost beyond imagination, and by no means do I intend to paint a rose-tinted picture of our people, but even in our darker moments I’m still utterly captivated. We are the most interesting things in this universe. (At least to me. :)) Mankind is the proper study of mankind, someone once said. (Pope? Alexander, that is, not Benedict or John Paul.) And I believe that. The rest is interesting, to be sure, and I don’t intend to stop studying any of it, but the pinnacle of interest, the peak of fascination, the summit of surprise is us, the sons of Adam and the daughters of Eve.

Go us. :)

I agree that people are most fascinating. Lately I have been most entranced by my two precocious little nephews.

I don’t think that I could ever tire of awaking to the gurgles, and sighs of a baby, or the laughs and giggles of a todler. The more I am around them the more I believe in living breathing miracles.

As for youth, they are so full of hope for the future, dreams of what could be, and the energy to make it happen. They hold the future in their hands.

Adults are more complex, and I am not sure if that is always a good thing. Yes with age comes wisdom (one would hope) and a better ability to understand, and to act. However age too often brings weariness, and dissolutionment. Too often adults get so caught up in life that they forget to live.

I can understand why the Lord speaks of becoming Childlike (not childish). To combine that joyful, hopeful, innocence, with wisdom, understanding, and temperance…

One other thing I have come to believe in my observations of man:

Every person who has ever lived or ever will live on the Earth has within them Genius. We are all born with a gift(s), talent(s), and some special divine inheritance that comes with being a child of God. In knowing this I make it a game to try and discover the genius, gifts, talents and divine inheritance in every person I meet. I am often awed, and humbled by what I find, but never shocked.

It’s a good attitude to have, really. Even the most boring person on earth is tremendously interesting once you peel back the outer layers of their personality. Everyone has a story.

I think not only are people fascinating, but the human experience is fascinating. And art (being created by humans) naturally reflects this. This is why I find “safe” art only partially satisfying at best. I enjoy experiencing the life stories of others, particularly through the media of books and film. I enjoy seeing the world through the lens of another’s experience (even when it’s an imagined world). I dislike sanitizing for sanitation’s sake. People do wonderful things, and people do terrible things. Life is good, and life is awful. I try to appreciate and comprehend the variety of experience that exists in the world, as I can always learn something from it. Sometimes the darkest moments in our lives edify us the most, and so I too often find edification in unexpected places.

I agree for the most part. “Unsafe” art seems to sort itself into two categories for me — the kind that stretches my soul and makes me feel more human, more in touch with life, and the kind that leaves me with a gross aftertaste, like licking barnacles off the underbelly of a toilet. I mean, it’s that distasteful to me. I haven’t yet figured out precisely where the line is, and whence it comes (God? me? my upbringing?), but as far as I can tell it’s a very real distinction for me. I don’t know if that’s the same for everyone, though.

Let’s talk about your last sentence first. Have you not thought about it or do you really not know? It should be fairly obvious that it’s not the same. No matter how we define “everyone.” Even if we go and define it as “temple-recommend holding Latter-day Saints” it’s still not the same.

I disagree with the idea that any art that you (or someone else) feels uncomfortable watching, or feels like he doesn’t have the spirit while watching, means anyone watching it does not (or cannot) feel the spirit. In fact, I’d posit that your feeling of discomfort is a combination of (a) your personality and (b) conditioning, as much as anything else.

As for personality, let’s look at your reaction to Tim Burton’s Corpse Bride as posted here. You enjoyed it (disco lights aside), because you were able to emotionally connect with the characters and the story. But you write about it as if you’re defending it, which makes it sound as if you either didn’t expect to like it, feel like you shouldn’t have liked it for some reason, or someone is reading this who will disapprove of your liking it unless you justify it. I’m not sure which one it is, but when I read your comments, my reaction is, “Why does it need defending?” Is it because of all the death imagery? Why wouldn’t you be able to honestly say you liked it? We’re talking about a PG-rated cartoon here, after all. I would expect this sort of language more if you had watched Schindler’s List or Brokeback Mountain. But by your own self-analysis, you invest yourself in a film. And not every film has a happy ending, or an unambiguously positive message. Perhaps your negative reaction to “unsafe” art is a function of your personality, and the way in which you emotionally invest yourself in a story. Some sort of emotional or other personal investment is important in order to experience art as the creator intended, but maybe your personality type leads you to respond positively to only certain messages.

Which brings me to conditioning. I’m certain you’ve been conditioned to respond negatively to all sorts of things. This conditioning comes from many sources, including family, church and school. Your threshold for offense at language is much lower than many, which you consider a virtue. It could just as easily viewed as a weakness. It’s probably true that you’re conditioned so strongly to react negatively to certain words that a book or film or song with an otherwise uplifting message will grate against you. And from your point of view, which is perfectly legitimate, you find this type of language unnecessary, and wonder why it couldn’t have been left out. (Ben, if I’m imposing incorrect assumptions about you, please correct me. I’m making observations based on experience in my own life and observing those I know, with similar upbringings). Obviously, though, not everyone has the same upbringing. And I think it’s important to appreciate that fact.

One important fact of your conditioning is that you have been raised LDS, served a mission, and continue to be an active member in the Church. Let’s discuss that.

There’s a sort of fundamental viewpoint difference between LDS Church members that informs this debate–and many other similar ones. Richard D. Poll wrote a book 40 years ago that outlines two basic types of active Mormons (i.e. holding callings, paying tithing, attending the temple), “each deeply committed to the gospel but also prone toward misgivings about the legitimacy, adequacy, or serviceability of the commitment of the other.”

Now, I think the dichotomy is oversimplistic, but I agree with his basic premise. That is, that there are “Iron Rod” Mormons, who see every question as having a definitive answer, and progress toward the Celestial Kingdom as a simple hand-over-hand process, and “Liahona” Mormons, who doctrinal issues and questions of faith as open-ended and in need of discussion, where an Iron Rod may see things as case-closed. Read chapter 1 of the book for (much) more on the topic.

On the Church website is the following disclaimer (intended for journalists writing about the Church):
Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

It strikes me that one characteristic of the Iron Rod Mormon (if we are to temporarily agree to accept Brother Poll’s dichotomy) is to forget about context, and take any comment made by any Church leader in any circumstance–even personal journals–as doctrine. The Doctrine and Covenants tells us, “And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.” Of course, an elder can only utter such scripture within the sphere of his own stewardship. Even scripture has context.

I think it is important in having friendly debates about things that reflect on Mormon doctrine or issues of personal faith to understand the viewpoint of all parties involved. If we debate religion with a friend of a different background, we have to accept that we are going to have fundamentally different viewpoints on some–or many–key matters. But the point of debate is not always to convince another of the correctness of our own opinions (although we all know people who seem unable approach any discussion without having this goal in mind). I think part of the problem is that in the LDS Church people don’t give any room for varying beliefs or interpretations. In fact, many people seem to not believe this is even possible. We have “one Lord one faith, one baptism,” but that doesn’t always mean “one opinion, one interpretation, one answer.” Sometimes discussion with fellow Mormons can be more frustrating than discussions with non-Mormons, because one party sees the other as “closed-minded” and the other sees the first as unacceptably “liberal.”

So let me get back to art. I think conditioning and personality are very strong factors in what type of art you like or dislike. Where maybe you see a firm boundary of “off-limits” art, others even within the LDS community may find edification. And I think it’s important to accept the legitimacy of another’s edification even where we don’t find it. I loved attending my ward New Hampshire, not necessarily because there was anything especially unique to that ward or region, but because of the relative heterogeneity of membership. There was a constant infusion of extremely intelligent Mormons, who came for things like medical school, or a PhD program, or both. But in addition to these young families, there were the longterm residents, a mix of new converts, converts of several decades, and some who had a generation or few of membership under their belts. It may be the same everywhere, but I liked the tenacity of those members in making sure the discussion was well-rounded. If there was a difficult question to be asked, we rarely skipped over it. Sometimes it was uncomfortable, but I think I was always more edified for it.

Personally, one of things I find most difficult to swallow in church is the type of lesson that amounts to, “The world is so bad and getting worse, we’re grateful we’re so good and getting better… They’re misguided, we’re perfectly guided. Let’s review all the good things we do to keep us from being bad like the world.” I think this sort of lesson is alienating and self-righteous. Of course, these lessons happened in New Hampshire, like they happen anywhere. And I recall one occasion where my wife–a convert of some 8 years–told me how uncomfortable she felt in a Relief Society lesson where all they did was rail against television the whole time, and people shared testimony after testimony of how little television they watch and how evil they know the shows that they don’t watch are. The point isn’t that the TV-decriers are wrong, it’s that they didn’t even consider that their opinion may not be shared, or that there was even room for any other opinion. And if confronted with this thought, how would they respond? Would they consider someone who watches TV–even the shows they disapprove of–as sinful and in need of repentance? Is that our right to decide?

One of my favorite moments in my New Hampshire ward happened about 6 years ago. A Utah-emigrant teaching the lesson mentioned a specific movie by name in an Elder’s Quorum lesson. (This happens every year during Oscar season, I’ve noticed. Whatever big film is considered morally bankrupt, we hear talks, lessons and testimonies defaming it by name.) In this case, the film was mentioned as an example of how Hollywood promotes and glorifies sin. And the film in question definitely had adult content, and deserved its R rating. But another brother took the time to defend the film, saying that he had seen it, and while it portrayed mature actions and themes, its message was not to glorify things Mormons consider wrong; and he went on to share an insight he had gained while watching the film.

Why is this one of my favorite Church moments? Because it was a piece of intelligent discussion, rather than simply drinking the Kool-Aid and joining in the party of xenophobic condemnation. On the other hand, I have great respect for those Iron Rod-type members who show respect for the differing opinions of their class members, without antagonism or feeling the need to correct their wayward beliefs. That isn’t to say they don’t disagree, or cite scripture or personal experience to rebut it, but if we hear a person out, and ignore that initial urge to interrupt and nip their opinion in the bud, we can often learn something.

I learned this on my mission. Now, I think that the mission experience is designed to create Iron Rod members–a spiritual boot camp designed to separate the wheat from the chaff. What do I mean by this? I mean strict obedience, the ability to accept an answer as The Answer, to try to apply the same pattern to every conversion experience. Works for some, not for others. And on my mission I struggled with a process (that started in the MTC) of realizing I wasn’t an Iron Rod member (because I found myself wanting to discuss and question things that I was expected to take for granted), wanting to be one, trying to be one, not succeeding fully at being one, feeling inadequate that I wasn’t yet one, and continuing to try. It wasn’t until after my mission that I became satisfied with the idea that it is okay to have questions about things that many other Mormons feel they already have answers to. But while on my mission, I had an experience that helped me begin to realize it. We were teaching a youngish guy with strongly Buddhist parents. He was progressing in his testimony, and he began to worry about his parents, knowing that not only would they disapprove of his changing religions, but that they would never even consider learning with the missionaries. On one visit, I was on switch-offs with my district leader, and this investigator told us about a dream he had had in response to his prayers about what would become of his parents.

The dream was about an island. There was a father and his children, who were on one side of the island. And there was a boat waiting to take them to safety on the other side of the island. The father wanted to send his children to the boat on the other side of the island. But the island had many perils. There was a river that ran straight through the center of the island, but there were crocodiles in it. Various routes through the jungle were longer, and had different difficulties depending on the path. The father did not send all of his children on the same path, though. He sent them on different paths through the jungle, and despite taking different paths, they were able to make it to the boat on the other side. For this young man, it comforted him, and told him that his parents would still have a chance to return to Heavenly Father, even if they were Buddhists.

This is one of my most special mission experiences. Not long into his recounting of the dream, my initial reaction was that this conflicted with Church doctrine. There is only one Church, and a Buddhist cannot return to God without the necessary ordinances. But I suppressed this initial desire to refute the things he was telling me. Something kept me listening, and my DL, too. By the time he had finished relating the dream, the spirit had given me a greater understanding of our Heavenly Father’s love for us, and his plan for us. I did not refute anything he had said, and instead I interpreted the dream for him, further explaining the symbolism of the different things he saw. He was right to be comforted. I explained to him that the island does not simply represent the mortal world, but it represents the set of challenges that Heavenly Father has given us. He sends some of us down the river, because he trusts that we will be able to deal with the crocodiles. But he puts others on the jungle route, perhaps because he knows they would never survive the crocodiles, but will be able to avoid the tigers and other dangers of the jungle. Our mortal lives are only a portion of that experience, and the journey is not over at death. In the dream, the boat did not represent heaven, or God’s presence. The boat is a vehicle. The vehicle is the Church of Jesus Christ. It is the doctrines, the ordinances, and the priesthoods necessary to bring us back to our father in heaven. Some of us arrive at the boat in this life, others of us arrive at the boat after this life. The important thing to understand is that we are each sent on the path that is tailored to us, and God understands our strengths and weaknesses, and the challenges of the path he has set us on. The genuine origin of that dream was impressed upon both me and my DL in that experience. I learned the importance of reserving judgment and keeping an open mind, and not letting my narrow interpretation of things color the world around me, or limit my own edification. As it happened, a week or so later I switched off in the other district, and our two junior companions visited this same fellow. When he related his dream to them, they essentially rebuked him, and said there is only One True Church. I never taught him again, because he wouldn’t see the missionaries anymore. At the time it was a painful confirmation of the lesson to me.

The reason I write all of this, Ben, is because I hope that it might help you better understand your fellow humans–and your fellow Church members–in some small way. Writing it has helped me. Naturally, we still have the right to choose what kind of art to experience and internalize. My goal isn’t to marginalize your right to hold your opinions. But in my experience, open, intelligent and respectful dialogue is never a bad thing. And for me, choosing to experience art that might be viewed as “unsafe,” or conflict with my personal opinions, it’s a way of seeing things from the creator’s viewpoint. And I’ve often been pleasantly surprised.

I think the difference for me is that I don’t always feel like the distasteful is necessarily a negative thing. Many times, great darkness leads to a bright catharsis. When I watch a film or read a book, I ask myself “does this piece have a redemptive quality?” Redemptive does not equate to everything being nice, cheery, and naive. Redemption and a powerful catharsis is the product of tension. Sometimes that tension is difficult to watch and read. However, it’s difficult to obtain the powerful end without the bumpy means. That’s been my experience with both life and art. Once again, my two baht on the situation.

rikker: Since the last shall be first, let me say that what I meant to say (gosh, I seem to say that a lot, now, don’t I? :)) was, “I don’t know that that’s the same for everyone, though,” meaning, “It’s not the same for everyone.”

I agree with you that the mere fact of my discomfort in watching some material doesn’t necessarily mean that anyone who watches it automatically loses the Spirit. Conditioning is a big part of it, as is personal taste and a number of other factors.

My fear, I think, is that it’s too easy to say, “Well, I have a higher tolerance for X and Y,” thus justifying media that isn’t appropriate. Because there is a line, and there are movies and TV shows and music that do offend the Spirit. I’m not saying that you or anyone else has crossed it, of course, but it seems like it would be all too easy to rationalize your way into watching whatever you want, regardless of what the prophets have said. And while different people have different tolerance levels, I’m not sure if the Spirit varies on that. (I mean I really don’t know; on one hand, it seems like it should be the same across the board, but on the other, it might be dependent on us to some degree.)

As for the standard, let’s look at the For the Strength of Youth pamphlet, since that clearly is a standard, not isolated out of context, and it’s as official as they come:

Our Heavenly Father has counseled us as Latter-day Saints to seek after “anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy” (Articles of Faith 1:13). Whatever you read, listen to, or watch makes an impression on you. Public entertainment and the media can provide you with much positive experience. They can uplift and inspire you, teach you good and moral principles, and bring you closer to the beauty this world offers. But they can also make what is wrong and evil look normal, exciting, and acceptable.

…

Don’t attend or participate in any form of entertainment, including concerts, movies, and videocassettes, that is vulgar, immoral, inappropriate, suggestive, or pornographic in any way. Movie ratings do not always accurately reflect offensive content. Don’t be afraid to walk out of a movie, turn off a television set, or change a radio station if what’s being presented does not meet your Heavenly Father’s standards. And do not read books or magazines or look at pictures that are pornographic or that present immorality as acceptable.

In short, if you have any question about whether a particular movie, book, or other form of entertainment is appropriate, don’t see it, don’t read it, don’t participate.

I do think there’s some latitude in interpreting God’s commandments — for example, there are plenty of ways to study the scriptures — but it’s dangerous to interpret our way out of obedience.

That said, I go back to the dichotomy I mentioned earlier — that there’s “unsafe” art which makes me feel uncomfortable and yet stretches my soul, and “unsafe” art which makes me feel stained, dirty, and unholy. I have no problem with the former, and while I don’t particularly care to spend most of my entertainment time with that sort of thing, I think it’s good. But the latter is bad.

Torben: Oh, I definitely agree that great darkness can lead to a bright catharsis. I love Crime and Punishment, for example. And I fully believe that getting rid of the darkness (or opposition, we’ll call it) results in mostly vapid stories which have no power to move or influence us. The trick is in portraying the darkness without actually becoming evil in the process. And I do believe there’s a line between the two, because I believe that there’s media out there that God most emphatically does not want the Latter-day Saints watching, reading, or listening to.

And I think that the suggestions in the pamphlet above trump the redeeming quality of a film — in other words, if it portrays immorality as acceptable, then I don’t care if it’s got a great message overall, it’s still not right. (Is there another way to interpret that part of the pamphlet? I don’t see any provisos or exceptions there. But I am interested to see other perspectives on the matter.)

Here we go… :)

Call me the “devil’s advocate,” if you will.

The part of the LDS website you link to is entitled “Youth Materials.” The introduction to the FTSOTY pamphlet on the site says:

For the Strength of Youth summarizes standards from scripture and from the writings and teachings of Church leaders. The information in this section was reviewed, accepted, and endorsed by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is available here and also as a printed pamphlet for the guidance and blessing of the youth of the Church.

Specifically, the last sentence says it is made available here “for the guidance and blessing of the youth of the Church.” So by its own definition, its not for me. But let’s discuss it anyway.

I am not using this to defend an adult’s right to participate in any sort of entertainment out there, but as part of the explanation why I believe that there is a difference between things acceptable for “youth” (generally meaning legal minors, but probably more realistically meaning immature people in general) to watch, read or participate in, and things for adults.

I don’t believe in a universal standard that applies to children/youth and adults alike.

If you do, it can take two forms (1) adults shouldn’t watch anything kids shouldn’t watch, or (2) kids can watch anything adults can watch. I disagree with both of these statements.

Now, getting back to the issue of context. Dare I say it? FTSOTY takes the 13th Article of Faith out of context. Of course, you can pretty much always say that, since there’s always a larger context.

“If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.”

I have a few responses: (1) Does this also mean “and shun everything else”?; (2) Does this imply a universal standard? Why does seem like people think there has to be a general consensus that something meets these qualifications, or else a person is subject to the ostracism of the Mormons?; and (3) Does this allow us to pass judgment on the decisions of others?

For me, the answer is that this sort of decision is subjective. Unless you’re in a position of Priesthood stewardship, I don’t really feel the need or authority to judge someone else’s choices where they are clearly outside the bounds of pornography. But even that’s subjective. Some people think David and The Mona Lisa are pornographic. If I ever quote this passage of the 13th Article of Faith to another adult, I feel the onus on me to necessarily qualify it I personally find this thing not virtuous, not praiseworthy, etc. I don’t think quoting the Article of Faith as if it present a clear standard is sufficient. Because I don’t find it does.

But I believe what the 13th AoF says, of course. And in the context of FTSOTY, I think it’s an essential guideline. Youth need guidelines, and while I disagree with the methods of the rating system, I think they’re better than nothing in guiding parents to wisely select for themselves which movies they should allow their children to see. But even if we didn’t have them, I don’t think it would be the end of the world. It’s the parents’ responsibility. There’s no book rating system. And I will be more than dismayed if one is ever put into place.

For youth, maybe this paragraph works: “In short, if you have any question about whether a particular movie, book, or other form of entertainment is appropriate, don’t see it, don’t read it, don’t participate.”

But for me, personally, I reject this statement outright. Again, that doesn’t mean I am going to go see anything out there. But I strongly disagree that something being questionable (or even superficially questionable) means it should be rejected. I’ll save that for the people who oppose the Harry Potter books for being about black magic and witchcraft.

I also don’t like to characterize media-consumption as having a certain amount of “tolerance” for things. I simply don’t think of it this way. It’s a foreign paradigm to me, being imposed by others. I find Shrek distasteful, but I highly recommend, say, Hotel Rwanda, a film about genocide, complete with on-screen killing and scores of dead bodies. It’s not about tolerance, to me. I’ve seen the first two Shreks, and I don’t think I need to repent for those. But I don’t like them. It’s the whole package.

There’s more to be said, but I’m going to stop here and allow myself to be skewered now. :)

Interesting discussion gentlemen… My experience is that there are absolutes but that the absolute is applied to the principle of obedience to the promptings of the Spirit. Not all men have the same job, trial or calling in life. However, all men are prepared to come to their birth with all the knowledge and talents required to fulfill their foreordained missions. It is impossible for me to believe that one can not tell the difference in that which instructs and that which offends the spirit unless that individual has denied the promptings of the Spirit so often and so long that the Spirit has ceased to strive with that individual.

In your discussion it is also important to separate the “study” of mankind and “being entertained” by the dark things that afflict mankind. The one is necessary the other makes you an accessory to sin.

FTSOY is a primer for youth as they study the GUR’s of life, and it is adequate for most normal ordinary life situations. I know that God compensates when extraordinary circumstances present themselves, but the necessity for this is rare. An example of this is when Heather started college at barely 16 years of age. She was required to take an art history class. The textbook was full of paintings and statues of nudes and she had to memorize and identify the pieces of art. We drove out to the ocean and studied them while sitting on the beach AFTER I drew bathing suits on all the nudes in the book (at Heather’s request). As an adult mother protecting her child’s tender spirit, it didn’t bother me and after I added to the artwork, it didn’t bother Heather.

Now, seven years later, Heather could handle it if it was required again, but she would prefer not to. However, I’m sure that she would do the same service for her own children later on if necessary. What was traumatizing to her at 16 is now a funny memory at 23 (especially because she sold the book back at the end of the semester.)

Contrast Heather’s art education to that of the art education that some of the early pioneers would have had when the prophet sent them on art missions to Europe to learn how to paint the murals in the temples. The European art schools taught and still teach using nude models. I would assume that the art missionaries would have had a traditional art education. I think that it is safe to say that God knows better where to draw the lines than we do.

Just something to think about…

This is a good discussion. Sometimes I’m a little bit “slow of speech” and I have trouble expressing my feelings, and thoughts, but I’m going to try. Bear with me everyone :)

I really agree with what Janet has said here,
My experience is that there are absolutes but that the absolute is applied to the principle of obedience to the promptings of the Spirit.

I think that really, I base my decisions on what I want. I want to have the spirit with me, so I try to stay away from things that drive away the spirit. To me, it’s that simple. What do you want? Do you want to “get away with” as much as you can, or do you want to do the best you can? Of course, I sometimes struggle and get confused with what I want at the moment and what I really truly want.

I am really grateful that the church leaders put out statements that are so clear like the For the Strength of Youth pamphlet. I really like how it says that ” In short, if you have any question about whether a particular movie, book, or other form of entertainment is appropriate, don’t see it, don’t read it, don’t participate. ”

To me, entertainment is not so important that I want to risk feeling uncomfortable participating if I have a question about whether or not it is appropriate. It’s just not worth it to me. There are so many other things I can participate in that don’t leave me feeling sick. I’ve been burned several times, unfortunately, where I have gone ahead and watched something that was questionable (I guess I’m thinking movies mainly here) and felt really bad afterwards. Felt like I’d wasted my time, and offended the spirit.

In response to Rikker, I think that the FTSOY pamphlet is more than just a set of guidelines for youth. I think of it like a stepping stone to even better quality of life, after you pass through your youth, rather than just a set of guidelines to see you safely through your youth and then to abandon once you reach “maturity.” I’m not saying that you’ve abandoned the FTSOY, but it sounds like you really feel like you are above that, like a lot of adults.

Why are there so many people who so fiercely defend their ability to handle things that are questionable? You can choose the actions, but you can’t choose the consequences.

If I make a comment right now, it will probably be just the first of a few on this topic. Yesterday, when I discovered all the new comments on here, I probably spent a good two hours trying to put into words what I felt. My words just got all tangled up. So I’m not tackling the whole thing. In fact, I may just thank Rikker for not only getting this discussion headed this way, but for his comment about your blog with the Corpse Bride part in it.

Rikker said, “But you write about it as if you’re defending it, which makes it sound as if you either didn’t expect to like it, feel like you shouldn’t have liked it for some reason, or someone is reading this who will disapprove of your liking it unless you justify it. I’m not sure which one it is, but when I read your comments, my reaction is, “Why does it need defending?” ”

That has ‘me’ written all over it! I am so often at a lack of words, vocally or written, as in interactions with people, or in the blog setting. It dawned on me just recently there is probably a certain defensiveness in the way I interact with people sometimes. I seem to care so much about what people think of me and have all my life it seems. I’m wondering, “Why?”

To be blunt about it, I have not expected people to like me in the first place and if I admitted to liking this or that or not liking this or that, then they for sure wouldn’t. This is like some kind of continuum, though, that I’m on and I’m not at the same place as I was when I was younger or even several months ago. Oh, boy, I’m probably doing it–trying to defend myself…Well, I’m just trying to explain how hard putting things into words is…maybe?

I wanted to keep this short. Thank you, Rikker. It feels like some puzzle pieces to the mystery of my life have been handed to me. I just want to become truly honest and good and real. Thank you, Ben. You are a wonderful example to follow for one thing and these blog experiences are doing me a world of good!

(And actually, I’m not even “mildly terrified” (LOL) at the thought of sending this off.)

Ooh–this is a good discussion!! Here are my thoughts:
I don’t think that we all judge others’ choices on the media we choose to consume, LDS or not. I feel strongly for various reasons that it’s all SO personal. We can’t assume that what anyone else is choosing to watch/read/listen to is “wrong”, “right”, whatever. If someone learns a great lesson from something others might think is inappropriate, well, good for them.
Having said that, though, I believe that standards are great things to have! I know there have been some other discussions on the R rating, so here I will add to that mountain of opinion.:) I love the standard of not watching R-rated movies! I watched some of them when I was in my teens, then I decided I would not. I was happy with that commitment to myself. I have a great story about how it saved me from making some poor choices, but it’s lengthy, and I’m too wordy, so I’ll just say it was a testament to me of the validity of the guideline. Not long after that, I got married to a man who had the opinion of many that the rating system is crap and unreliable and that we could and should make our own decisions. I thought, “Yeah, I’m a grown-up now! I can make good choices!” So my husband and I watched several movies without considering the rating, and we both watched things that were uncomfortable and that sent the spirit away. I renewed my decision to stop watching R-rated movies, and my husband later joined me in that choice.
Now, that doesn’t mean that I think it’s the only way to do things! I have no qualms with those who choose to watch movies that I don’t–all of my in-laws do, and frequently recommend them to me. But for me, (I’m really putting myself out here!) it’s too simple a suggestion not to follow! Am I charitable and loving and industrious and studious to my potential? Heavens, no! I also drink Coke and eat way too many brownies (one on desk right now)! There is so much in life that is so complex and difficult to sort through the gray. Having a guideline in some things is helpful and comforting, i.e, tithing-10%. As we all know, kids need rules and discipline to be happy and healthy. How different are we, as adults, that we don’t need direction or boundaries?
As for the FTSOY statement, I do sometimes choose to consume “questionable” content, and I don’t think that I’m any better off for it. I’m with Holly on this one. How badly do I need to see that R-rated movie? Is it worth abandoning my self-commitment, and storing un-uplifting content in my brain for a bit of entertainment? Nah.
But Rikker, I do think that none of us has the place to judge others. I’m with you there. Different people have different weaknesses and we should surely avoid the things that will be detrimental to us.

Rikker: I agree that our “judging” should be reserved for ourselves, and I see this discussion as being primarily about our own individual media choices, not about those of others’. I guess my concern is that many Latter-day Saints are straddling the line, watching media they know isn’t appropriate for them. I don’t judge them for it, of course, and I treat them the same way I treat everyone else, but at the same time I have to at least say something — a warning voice. And if they are following the Spirit, then great, I have no complaints. And if they decide to go ahead even when they know it’s wrong, well, I disagree with that choice, and I feel sorry for them, but they’ve got their agency.

It may be a foreign paradigm for you, but a lot of people I know have varying tolerance levels for things like profanity and violence. And I don’t think it’s wrong to be very sensitize to that — better to err on that end than the other, at any rate. Let’s take sex as an example. Passionate kissing is about where my level is — where I start to feel rather uncomfortable. Any more than that is definitely out of bounds for me. (And when you get into nudity and portrayals of behavior that ought to be kept private and sacred, yes, I think it ought to be out of bounds for most if not all Mormons as well. But of course they’re all free to their own opinions about how much is too much. And I’m free to think they’re wrong. :))

If I’m understanding you right, you’re saying that it doesn’t matter to you how much violence, profanity, or sex is in a film — the question for you is whether or not it’s a well-made film that feeds your aesthetic and narrative sensibilities. Is that right? I don’t want to misconstrue your meaning. I do think it’s a tad bit dangerous to outright reject something from the First Presidency, even if it doesn’t specifically apply to you. Yes, standards needn’t necessarily be the same between adults and children. There are films that are perfectly appropriate for adults but wouldn’t be good for children to watch. But do keep in mind that the FTSOY pamphlet is for youth, not children. And I’d say youth are a lot closer to adults than they are to children, so perhaps the guidelines are more for us than you realize.

J: LOL, “draw the lines” — good one. (I don’t know if that was intentional or not, but I liked it.) Anyway, yes, God does know better where to draw the lines.

Holly: Your last paragraph hit the nail on the head for me. It seems like far too many people are, as you say, fiercely defending their ability to handle questionable material. Shouldn’t it be the other way round? Shouldn’t we be trying to stay on the safe side of the line? I’d rather keep my soul than preserve my “freedom” to watch edgy films. (And no, Rikker, I’m not saying that you’re going to lose your soul. :P)

Shirley: LOL, thanks. I realize now that I never explained why I was defending Corpse Bride, so here we go. It’s probably stemming out of the “virtuous, lovely, and of good report” clause — by that standard, a movie like Corpse Bride looks on the surface to be dark and morbid, not lovely and virtuous. And so I subconsciously felt the need to explain.

Emily: While I agree that it’s not our place to judge, and also that there are often good lessons to be learned from otherwise-inappropriate films, I do think that there are real rights and wrongs in the universe. Moral relativism is hogwash. Now, letting the Lord judge instead of us doesn’t equal subscribing to relativism, of course, but I think today’s society is so scared of litigation and of finger pointing (take the homosexual movement, for example) that nobody is willing to say that something else is wrong. Before long, mark my words, we won’t be able to say that murder is wrong without getting sued or thrown in the clinker. Even now pedophilia is becoming more and more accepted. And in a world where nothing is wrong — this lukewarm, murky puddle we’re in — nothing is right, either. Everything melts into one big globby mess. What we need (and what the prophets take) is a firm stance on what is right and what is wrong. Yes, there is often an allowed range of interpretation, but it’s not so wide that everything is acceptable. Homosexuality is wrong. I don’t care if the person was born that way or was molested as a child or whatnot — homosexuality is not acceptable behavior before the Lord, period. Period! That doesn’t mean we need to scorn homosexuals themselves, or persecute them, but we cannot — must not! — bow to the warped philosophies of the world and tolerate every sin and perversion out there.

That said, there are films out there that are too dirty for any Latter-day Saint to watch, period. And I suspect that too many of us get too close to the line. Yes, we need to accept each other as people. But we don’t need to accept behavior that is contrary to the Spirit and to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Yes, there is latitude in how far is too far, depending on the person. But I think perhaps “too far” is closer than we imagine. I just can’t imagine a holy, pure God approving much of the media out there — films and music and books that spit in His face with their mockery of the sacred gifts of life and procreation which He has given us.

And I evidently could talk about this forever. :)

Oh, and see Connor’s post from last October on this, particularly the quote by Elder J. Richard Clarke.

What I wrote here was overly diplomatic. I didn’t really get my thought out too well. I do think that there are rights and wrongs in the world. I’m with you on that. My stance is that I make mistakes, I’m not perfect, and therefore I am hugely grateful for guidance from our leaders! I’ve been involved with many people who think that they’re so much smarter and more discerning than the rest of us that they completely disregard all counsel. They assume that they are unable to be tempted because they’re too smart, and that’s when they start sliding down the slippery slope of grays. I’ve done that very thing at times. But simple counsel and guidelines give us something to hang on to. As for the “iron rod” Mormon and the “Liahona” Mormon, why couldn’t we, shouldn’t we be both? For example, opt not to watch R-rated movies (iron rod, check the box, follow that counsel) and use the Spirit to help us sort out the other media we are surrounded by (Liahona). Perhaps I’m immature in my spiritual development, but it’s so much easier for me to say, “OK. No R-rated movies.” than, “oh, that looks good and might have a lesson in it and the MPAA is dumb anyway and I heard that there’s only a language problem……” Some things are hard for us. I think that I’m a pretty good mom and I love my kids and teach them what’s right, so maybe we could get by ok without Family Home Evening. But we do it because we’ve been counseled to, and I know that it will help fill in the gaps for the mistakes I do make as a parent. Now, I LOVE movies, so I would easily justify watching something that “looked good” if I didn’t have some standard.
This discussion has really got me thinking about the rest of everything I watch and read. I do want to be more discerning, and I thank everyone for their comments!

Exactly! I agree with everything you said — thanks for your comment. :) And I really think that the Iron Rod/Liahona Mormon dichotomy is a chasm that probably needs to be bridged. Of one heart and of one mind is the goal, after all. I like the combined example you gave, and I think it’s exactly what we ought to be doing. (And considering that the MPAA is a very liberal institution, if they think something is rated R, then it’s almost certainly going to be offensive to me.) And I too love movies and would watch anything with an interesting plot if there weren’t standards to keep me away from the dangerous films which stain us with poison and decay.