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. :)

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.)

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.

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…

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. :)

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.)