The Latest "Movie Made by Mormons" Ain't Too Mormon-Friendly

[Calm]

I am quite able to figure out what is an unsuitable movie for me. I don't need stupid letters.

I don't think using ratings for teens or others who refuse to do their homework on what is in a movie is a bad idea though using a website that looks closer would be better. For those who are willing to do homework, knowing what the principles are behind the "no R-rated" counsel, using their own wisdom is a good idea imo like we do for Word of Wisdom, keeping the Sabbath day holy, etc. I think in many cases a wise choice would preclude many PG movies while a few R are appropriate for the educational aspects.

Myself, I seriously look at R movies to see if there is enough redeeming quality to outweigh the usual vulgarities, etc. Usually not so much so I wait if I am interested until it comes on TV, it's not like my life is less rich due to missing an action movie or two.

[Jason]

Three movies:

• "Saving Private Ryan" is rated R.
• "The Longest Day" is rated G
• "A Bridge Too Far" is rated PG.

Now, these three films cover essentially the same material, which is to say: war violence. The reason SPR gets an R rating is because of the use of the "F" word (definitiely more than 4 occurrences). Now, isn't that amazing! I suppose SPR is a bit more graphic in portraying the violence, too

Understatement of the centurey. Saving Private Ryan is extremely graphic in its violence, and that is the real reason that it gets an R. In fact, it probably misses out on getting an NC-17 for violence only because of Spielberg's pull and its subject.

I watch some "R" rated movies, and I avoid many PG-13 movies, and the reason is that the ratings system doesn't really tell me whether a movie is good to watch or not.

[FutureTwitBlog]

I have to say that sometimes I question the LDS church's fixation on nudity and sex. Yes, both are sacred and both have their time and place. However, pretending like both of them don't exist in the real world seems to me to not be healthy for kids. How exactly are you supposed to have a frank discussion with your kids about sex when you complain about "back nudity" in a movie trailer? Are your kids going to feel comfortable coming to you with questions about sex or even admitting that they have become sexually active?

As for the movie in question, I'm not shocked by the sex scenes -- maybe a little more by the gratuitous violence. I guess the time when I was married combined with my time at a non-church university have jaded me a little more to those sorts of things.

[nicolasconnault]

I have to say that sometimes I question the LDS church's fixation on nudity and sex. Yes, both are sacred and both have their time and place. However, pretending like both of them don't exist in the real world seems to me to not be healthy for kids. How exactly are you supposed to have a frank discussion with your kids about sex when you complain about "back nudity" in a movie trailer? Are your kids going to feel comfortable coming to you with questions about sex or even admitting that they have become sexually active?

As for the movie in question, I'm not shocked by the sex scenes -- maybe a little more by the gratuitous violence. I guess the time when I was married combined with my time at a non-church university have jaded me a little more to those sorts of things.

The LDS Church doesn't have a fixation on nudity and sex, but it has very strict standards of morality. The hedonistic version of sexuality commonly (maybe always) displayed in entertainment media is in disharmony with what the Church teaches about the purposes of creation and procreation. The more our children are exposed to it, the more difficult it is for them to understand how to nurture healthy interpersonal relationships before marriage and a healthy sexual relationship during marriage.

So, no we don't pretend that sexuality doesn't exist, we try to stay away from Satan's version of "love" while learning about true love. Pure and simple.

[Stargazer]

I watch some "R" rated movies, and I avoid many PG-13 movies, and the reason is that the ratings system doesn't really tell me whether a movie is good to watch or not.

Absolutely agree with this.

[Calm]

Absolutely agree with this.

Anyone who does depend on the rating system needs to be prepared to get up and walk out on occasion and lose their investment in entertainment if they want to abide by the standards of teh TTTF book.

[nicolasconnault]

I suppose I shouldn't speak negatively of the "no R-rated movies" rule. As someone pointed out, it is far easier for adults than for children and teenagers to judge in advance whether a movie is appropriate to watch or not, and by keeping this simple rule these young people will be kept protected from most of the filth that is out there, while still being able to watch many decent movies.

That being said, they also need to be taught, constantly, the principle behind the rule. I believe that the Strength of Youth booklet does exactly that, but we tend to focus on the "rules" rather than on the principles, because it requires less mental exertion.

[FutureTwitBlog]

The LDS Church doesn't have a fixation on nudity and sex, but it has very strict standards of morality. The hedonistic version of sexuality commonly (maybe always) displayed in entertainment media is in disharmony with what the Church teaches about the purposes of creation and procreation. The more our children are exposed to it, the more difficult it is for them to understand how to nurture healthy interpersonal relationships before marriage and a healthy sexual relationship during marriage.

So, no we don't pretend that sexuality doesn't exist, we try to stay away from Satan's version of "love" while learning about true love. Pure and simple.

Without getting into the nitty gritty details (and we don't need to go "there") of sex and sexuality, I really am not sure what you mean by the "hedonistic version of sexuality". Especially inside of a marriage, sex is sex. I'm not sure there is a "hedonisitic" or "non-hedonistic" (whatever that means) version of it.

Also, I disagree that "exposing" your children to sex makes it difficult for them to understand and nurture healthy sexual relationships. If sex is discussed in a respectful and honest way, most of the research I've seen seems to indicate that talking to your children about sex is actually an excellent way to foster healthy sexual behavior -- including a lower occurrence of STDs and unanticipated pregnancies.

[nicolasconnault]

Without getting into the nitty gritty details (and we don't need to go "there") of sex and sexuality, I really am not sure what you mean by the "hedonistic version of sexuality". Especially inside of a marriage, sex is sex. I'm not sure there is a "hedonisitic" or "non-hedonistic" (whatever that means) version of it.

Also, I disagree that "exposing" your children to sex makes it difficult for them to understand and nurture healthy sexual relationships. If sex is discussed in a respectful and honest way, most of the research I've seen seems to indicate that talking to your children about sex is actually an excellent way to foster healthy sexual behavior -- including a lower occurrence of STDs and unanticipated pregnancies.

Hedonistic sex means self-serving, self-satisfying, selfish and respect-less sex, and it occurs plentifully in marriages. Have you ever heard of spouse rape? Yep, it happens, and a lot more than you might think.

As far as "healthy sexuality", I wasn't just talking about physical health, but a more holistic view of health, including emotional and spiritual. The secular view of sexuality has no place for spirituality, but the LDS view does.

[FutureTwitBlog]

Hedonistic sex means self-serving, self-satisfying, selfish and respect-less sex, and it occurs plentifully in marriages. Have you ever heard of spouse rape? Yep, it happens, and a lot more than you might think.

As far as "healthy sexuality", I wasn't just talking about physical health, but a more holistic view of health, including emotional and spiritual. The secular view of sexuality has no place for spirituality, but the LDS view does.

Yes . . . spousal rape. But, putting that aside and assuming a more normal relationship, I would guess that most marriages just have sex, from which both partners hopefully get something beneficial. This is the type of relationship I had in mind -- the healthy, normal one.

I agree that sex has a definite emotional and/or "spiritual" component and that is an important part of having a healthy sexual relationship -- no disagreement there. In fact, I'm sure most of the secular sex therapist would agree as well.

Getting back to the original question, I'm still not sure how exposure to sexual content, when presented in a respectful and tasteful manner, hurts children in their future sexual relationships.

[nicolasconnault]

Getting back to the original question, I'm still not sure how exposure to sexual content, when presented in a respectful and tasteful manner, hurts children in their future sexual relationships.

That's precisely my point: sexual content is NOT presented in that way in movies. Ever. The reason is simple: it is included in movies in order to entertain. Sexual relations are too sacred to be used for entertainment purposes, IMO.

[FutureTwitBlog]

That's precisely my point: sexual content is NOT presented in that way in movies. Ever. The reason is simple: it is included in movies in order to entertain. Sexual relations are too sacred to be used for entertainment purposes, IMO.

I would tend to disagree with your premise that no sexual content in a movie is ever presented tastefully. To me, it depends a lot on the context, whether the scene adds to the overall story, and whether the length and exposure is the minimum to convey the story line or gratuitous. However it's a point that can't be argued because there's no accounting for taste.

Also, on the point about sex scenes being too sacred to be used in movies, I would tend to disagree as well. To me, sex is too important a part of life to tip toe around. I would want my children to know that sex is something to be respected but also something that is very natural and wholesome. I don't believe that a person can do this if they're covering their kids' eyes every time a woman in a bikini pops on the TV. Of course, this too is a matter of opinion.

[nicolasconnault]

I would tend to disagree with your premise that no sexual content in a movie is ever presented tastefully. To me, it depends a lot on the context, whether the scene adds to the overall story, and whether the length and exposure is the minimum to convey the story line or gratuitous. However it's a point that can't be argued because there's no accounting for taste.

Also, on the point about sex scenes being too sacred to be used in movies, I would tend to disagree as well. To me, sex is too important a part of life to tip toe around. I would want my children to know that sex is something to be respected but also something that is very natural and wholesome. I don't believe that a person can do this if they're covering their kids' eyes every time a woman in a bikini pops on the TV. Of course, this too is a matter of opinion.

Just to clarify, I was talking about sexual intercourse being shown in movies. Your example of a woman in a bikini is highly exaggerated.

[rick7475]

Rating systems differ between different countries and in some cases (like Canada) different provinces. So what is 'R' in the US is usually '14A' in most of Canada and 'PG' in Quebec.

I find the best way to determine if a movie is right for your family, check www.imdb.com's parent guide or subscribe to 'Screen It'. These sites usually list all the bad stuff, from sex and nudity, violence, and the number and types of swear words. We also rent or stream movies and when there are bad scenes we ask our kids to leave the room or hide their eyes as we fast forward (a good example is Titanic).

[FutureTwitBlog]

Just to clarify, I was talking about sexual intercourse being shown in movies. Your example of a woman in a bikini is highly exaggerated.

Just to clarify, I don't know of any movies (other than porno movies) that fully show sexual intercourse on the screen. Most of the movies I'm aware of show a "James Bond" type sex scene where there is a lot of hugging and kissing before the camera cuts away. Some few, tend to go further than that and actually include relevant motion into the mix. A select few are even worse still. So yes, the bikini example is one end of exaggeration, but your "sexual intercourse" example is at the other end.

[nicolasconnault]

Just to clarify, I don't know of any movies (other than porno movies) that fully show sexual intercourse on the screen. Most of the movies I'm aware of show a "James Bond" type sex scene where there is a lot of hugging and kissing before the camera cuts away. Some few, tend to go further than that and actually include relevant motion into the mix. A select few are even worse still. So yes, the bikini example is one end of exaggeration, but your "sexual intercourse" example is at the other end.

We're thinking on a completely different line here. As I wrote earlier in this thread, what matters is not the amount of flesh shown, but the emotions the scenes are intended to create in the viewers. Sex scenes (no matter how explicit they are) are not included to teach morals or good role models, to inspire or uplift. They are intended to arouse the audience sexually, to appeal to our baser instincts. In addition, the majority of sexual relations displayed in movies are of an adulterous nature, because that is more exciting for the viewers.

I hope you're not suggesting that these sex scenes (e.g. "James Bond type") are actually good role models for our youth, and that depriving our youth from viewing them will lead to social, emotional and/or psychological deficits in their adult lives. I wonder whether you think that the billions of people who grew up before the invention of moving pictures or mass media in general have grown up unaware of the realities of sexuality. Do you think we are better off now that we are shown how truly perverted and evil humans can be thanks to sex and violence in the movies?

[FutureTwitBlog]

We're thinking on a completely different line here. As I wrote earlier in this thread, what matters is not the amount of flesh shown, but the emotions the scenes are intended to create in the viewers. Sex scenes (no matter how explicit they are) are not included to teach morals or good role models, to inspire or uplift. They are intended to arouse the audience sexually, to appeal to our baser instincts. In addition, the majority of sexual relations displayed in movies are of an adulterous nature, because that is more exciting for the viewers.

I hope you're not suggesting that these sex scenes (e.g. "James Bond type") are actually good role models for our youth, and that depriving our youth from viewing them will lead to social, emotional and/or psychological deficits in their adult lives. I wonder whether you think that the billions of people who grew up before the invention of moving pictures or mass media in general have grown up unaware of the realities of sexuality. Do you think we are better off now that we are shown how truly perverted and evil humans can be thanks to sex and violence in the movies?

I don't think everything in life needs to teach a lesson to kids. Some things can be used to just entertain them, and I think the kids will turn out just fine. Most of them will know the difference between reality and fiction.

I also think that life on this planet is much better than it has ever been in the history of the world. In many ways, even though it has brought some undesirable consequences, I believe the increased openness about sex that our current society enjoys is mostly a positive thing, especially for women. While I still believe that the subject should be treated with respect, I still don't think that it means people have to whisper about it either.

As for the motives of movie studio, I would guess that their only long term objective would be to make money and everything, including how they depict sex, is secondary to that objective. If the popular sentiment turned in favor of eliminating all depictions of sex from their movies, the sexy scenes would be gone tomorrow.

This is almost the same problem I have every time subjects like this are brought up in elders quorum. It's always easy and fun to play the "I'm a bigger prude than you game" with these sorts of topics. If I say that movies should cut away from a sex scene while a couple is kissing, someone will say that no suggestion of sex should be shown at all. If I say a woman should only be shown in a modest swim suit, someone else will say that she should only be shown fully clothed -- and so the game goes until people have women in burqa and men being beaten daily to purge them of sexual thoughts. After all, you can always point to God (the same one that put Adam and Eve into the garden and told them to procreate) as the source of your prudishness -- and people usually won't dare to argue because of the fear of sacrilege. All I'm saying is that some discussion and depiction of sex, when done tastefully, is not necessarily a bad thing in life, especially not for kids, even if the people presenting the sex scene to kids are doing it for dishonorable reasons.

[nicolasconnault]

I don't think everything in life needs to teach a lesson to kids.

You're the one that suggested that movies with nudity were good because they teach kids about sexuality...

Some things can be used to just entertain them, and I think the kids will turn out just fine.

OK so you're happy with adulterous sex being used to entertain kids. I wonder how much the apostles would agree with your opinions...

Most of them will know the difference between reality and fiction.

What about the ones that don't? You are implying that some won't know the difference. What percentage do you have in mind?

I also think that life on this planet is much better than it has ever been in the history of the world. In many ways, even though it has brought some undesirable consequences, I believe the increased openness about sex that our current society enjoys is mostly a positive thing, especially for women.

I disagree 100% on every single point in this sentence.

While I still believe that the subject should be treated with respect, I still don't think that it means people have to whisper about it either.

Do you think that the alternative to licentious display of fornication in the mass media is to "whisper about it"? I'm very open about sexuality, the fact that I discuss it in this forum is one proof of it. I certainly don't treat it as a taboo, but I do try to speak of it respectfully. My mother taught all her 6 children about sexuality using documentaries and books that are intended to instruct, not to entertain. She has always spoken openly about it. She didn't take us to the latest James Bond movie to show us how a man should treat a woman. I'm not sure what sort of sexual education you received as a youth, but please don't assume that everyone else received the same.

As for the motives of movie studio, I would guess that their only long term objective would be to make money and everything, including how they depict sex, is secondary to that objective. If the popular sentiment turned in favor of eliminating all depictions of sex from their movies, the sexy scenes would be gone tomorrow.

But that's not likely to happen, is it? I don't really see your point here.

This is almost the same problem I have every time subjects like this are brought up in elders quorum. It's always easy and fun to play the "I'm a bigger prude than you game" with these sorts of topics.

Here comes the not-so-subtle ad hominem, I was expecting it...

If I say that movies should cut away from a sex scene while a couple is kissing, someone will say that no suggestion of sex should be shown at all. If I say a woman should only be shown in a modest swim suit, someone else will say that she should only be shown fully clothed -- and so the game goes until people have women in burqa and men being beaten daily to purge them of sexual thoughts.

And here is the slippery slope! I'm afraid you're fast running out of persuasive arguments.

After all, you can always point to God (the same one that put Adam and Eve into the garden and told them to procreate) as the source of your prudishness -- and people usually won't dare to argue because of the fear of sacrilege.

Do you really think I need to justify my choices of entertainment?

All I'm saying is that some discussion and depiction of sex, when done tastefully, is not necessarily a bad thing in life, especially not for kids, even if the people presenting the sex scene to kids are doing it for dishonorable reasons.

Please let me know when you find any scripture or any quote from any general authority to support your view. Until then we'll have to agree to disagree.

[FutureTwitBlog]

OK so you're happy with adulterous sex being used to entertain kids. I wonder how much the apostles would agree with your opinions...

Hopefully with the millions of people starving to death every year, millions more living in poverty, millions more dying of 100% curable or preventable diseases, etc. they have better things to think about than what Hollywood does with its time and money. Sometimes, from watching conference, I get the impression that they don't, but that's a separate story.

What about the ones that don't? You are implying that some won't know the difference. What percentage do you have in mind?

Oh, I don't know, about the same percentage that won't realize that "cowboys and Indians" is a game and will end up shooting the neighbor's dog by mistake. Again -- most -- the vast majority.

I disagree 100% on every single point in this sentence.

Disagree if you wish. I still feel the points are valid.

Do you think that the alternative to licentious display of fornication in the mass media is to "whisper about it"? I'm very open about sexuality, the fact that I discuss it in this forum is one proof of it. I certainly don't treat it as a taboo, but I do try to speak of it respectfully. My mother taught all her 6 children about sexuality using documentaries and books that are intended to instruct, not to entertain. She has always spoken openly about it. She didn't take us to the latest James Bond movie to show us how a man should treat a woman. I'm not sure what sort of sexual education you received as a youth, but please don't assume that everyone else received the same.

I have no idea how open you are about sexuality in your personal life. The fact I'm trying to suggest to your mind is that, just because someone is a little more open about it and accepts certain limits beyond the ones you're comfortable with (but still within the limits of personal righteousness according to their understanding) doesn't mean you're right and their wrong. Some people don't want anything sexual in a movie, some do. Some people think that the Bond movies are nasty and teach children wrong ideas about how to treat a woman; others realize that it's just a movie and take the fictional material in there in stride.

But that's not likely to happen, is it? I don't really see your point here.

Well, if you could just convince more people to come over to your camp, I'm sure it would happen.

Here comes the not-so-subtle ad hominem, I was expecting it...

First, I wouldn't say that the statement was ad hominem (since I'm not implying a personal flaw on your part and trying to discredit your arguments by using the personal flaw). Second, you have done little in your response BUT play the "I'm more righteous about my sexuality and movie viewing habits than you" game. Examples:

"She didn't take us to the latest James Bond movie to show us how a man should treat a woman."

"I'm not sure what sort of sexual education you received as a youth . . ."

"Please let me know when you find any scripture or any quote from any general authority to support your view . . ."

In the first quote, you imply that I have suggested that people should teach their kids sex education based on James Bond movies -- a very gross distortion and misunderstanding of what I've actually said in my previous posts. In the second, you imply something was wrong with my sexual education as a child -- an interesting statement considering I've never met you before in my life. In the third quote, you play the general authority trump card on me.

You basically have done little else but bristle that someone could have a different world view than you (and still consider themselves a good member of the church, btw) and have basically dismissed most of my arguments by implying that I'm not as spiritual as you are. So, yes, you are playing the game that I referred to that invariably gets played when these things are brought up in church.

And here is the slippery slope! I'm afraid you're fast running out of persuasive arguments.

The slippery slope argument logical fallacy is a valid rebuttal only when a consequence in a sequence of events is unlikely to follow logically from a given cause earlier in the series of events. However, I don't think the criticism applies here. After all, if one is advocating banning all sex scenes from movies (as you are, if I'm reading your previous comments correctly), then why not ban them from the T.V. shows your kids watch too? Why not just ban anything too sex from everything your child sees, including in books, magazines, video games, etc.?

I've known more than a few parents that have taken this to such an extreme in life that they will literally cut their kids off from the rest of the world because they become so paranoid about them seeing anything to corrupt their minds. I've known parents who will go through the magazines and books their kids read and cut out anything they don't like -- including pictures of a girl in a bikini or a guy without a shirt. I've even known some that were so strict that they would only let their kids watch G rated movies, and not even all of those because movies like The Little Mermaid were too sexy. But, of course, why not -- who in the church can fault them for their behavior? After all, isn't this the ultimate goal of the "I'm more of a prude than you" game?

Do you really think I need to justify my choices of entertainment?

No, but neither do I need to justify mine. All I've been suggesting all along is that someone can have a different tolerance for sexuality in their movies than you and still be a good person or allow their kids to see certain movies and still be a good father. You're the one who is seemingly upset by that statement.

Please let me know when you find any scripture or any quote from any general authority to support your view. Until then we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'm sure if I go poking around the church's website long enough, I can find a GA quote sufficiently prudish to justify almost any level of extreme aversion to sexuality in movies, including the reaction I mentioned to The Little Mermaid above (and no that's not made up, btw). By the same token, I can find more than a few quotes to justify the idea that Adam was God the Father from good old Brigham and lots of other stuff. Whatever. While I appreciate their advice (which is different than official doctrine), I will continue to live by the dictates of my conscience and invite all other men to do the same.

[nicolasconnault]

Hopefully with the millions of people starving to death every year, millions more living in poverty, millions more dying of 100% curable or preventable diseases, etc. they have better things to think about than what Hollywood does with its time and money. Sometimes, from watching conference, I get the impression that they don't, but that's a separate story.

That's right, the living oracles of God actually spend a lot of time thinking and talking about immorality in the world, including in the media. The Church's business is salvation, not survival or even solving all the ills of the world. I am comfortable with that, but apparently that makes me a prude...

Oh, I don't know, about the same percentage that won't realize that "cowboys and Indians" is a game and will end up shooting the neighbor's dog by mistake. Again -- most -- the vast majority.

OK you're being funny here, I appreciate that. However my point remains. What about those that can't tell the difference? I'm talking about sexuality here, not violence.

I have no idea how open you are about sexuality in your personal life. The fact I'm trying to suggest to your mind is that, just because someone is a little more open about it and accepts certain limits beyond the ones you're comfortable with (but still within the limits of personal righteousness according to their understanding) doesn't mean you're right and their wrong. Some people don't want anything sexual in a movie, some do. Some people think that the Bond movies are nasty and teach children wrong ideas about how to treat a woman; others realize that it's just a movie and take the fictional material in there in stride.

I've put the wrong idea to you. I'm not arguing about how good a person or member you or anyone else is, based on their entertainment habits, I'm not even implying or thinking that. All I'm concerned about is spirituality and the wise use of our agency. The 2 hours it takes me to watch a movie with questionable morals but good entertainment value could be spent doing something equally or more entertaining without running the risk of being exposed to depravity, violence and the nasty side of human behaviour. So I'm not arguing about the intrinsic value of movies, but about the effect they have on our mind, considering the "best gifts" we have been counselled to hold onto in Moroni.

First, I wouldn't say that the statement was ad hominem (since I'm not implying a personal flaw on your part and trying to discredit your arguments by using the personal flaw). Second, you have done little in your response BUT play the "I'm more righteous about my sexuality and movie viewing habits than you" game. Examples:

Well you called me prudish and used that to justify that my opinions about movies were exaggerated... I agree I've used the same strategy, so let's just drop that part of the discussion.

The slippery slope argument logical fallacy is a valid rebuttal only when a consequence in a sequence of events is unlikely to follow logically from a given cause earlier in the series of events. However, I don't think the criticism applies here. After all, if one is advocating banning all sex scenes from movies (as you are, if I'm reading your previous comments correctly), then why not ban them from the T.V. shows your kids watch too? Why not just ban anything too sex from everything your child sees, including in books, magazines, video games, etc.?

My rebuttal stands then. How could banning sex scenes from movies possibly (or likely) lead to oppressing women, forcing them to cover themselves and physically punishing them, as you have suggested?

I'm sure if I go poking around the church's website long enough, I can find a GA quote sufficiently prudish to justify almost any level of extreme aversion to sexuality in movies, including the reaction I mentioned to The Little Mermaid above (and no that's not made up, btw). By the same token, I can find more than a few quotes to justify the idea that Adam was God the Father from good old Brigham and lots of other stuff. Whatever. While I appreciate their advice (which is different than official doctrine), I will continue to live by the dictates of my conscience and invite all other men to do the same.

So, do you believe there is any support for your views in the numerous teachings of our leaders in general conferences and official publications such as the Strength of Youth pamphlet, True to the Faith booklet, Proclamation to the world on the family and Gospel Principles manual? If you think that all these, including the messages of general conference, are mere "advice, different from official doctrine", then what religion are you living? I'm really, completely flabergasted by your attitude, but hopefully you can explain it to me a bit better, so I don't need to conclude that you're just trying to justify your entertainment habits.

[neworder]

I normally would not even be tempted to see this type of a film but I might just to see if Smac is completely overreacting (which I suspect he is). I notice that no comment of disgust was made over the full frontal upper body male nudity in this movie but a womans bare shoulders and a peek at a back covered almost completely by long hair is so shocking! Sorry but I find that patently absurd but if there is a blatent (not implied) sex scene, I will change my mind.

I could not agree more. This is why Katherine the Great is my favorite poster here on MADB.

[nicolasconnault]

I could not agree more. This is why Katherine the Great is my favorite poster here on MADB.

DOn't you think she's being prude?

[Chris Smith]

Well, to be honest, after watching the trailer, I'd say the movie, in total, looks cliche and second-rate, Mormon-made or not.

Agreed.

(BTW, I haven't seen Saints and Soldiers, but I found Forever Strong quite enjoyable.)

[cinepro]

What's this "mature ratings" thing, anyway?

It seems someone finally told the Church that the MPAA ratings system is only used in the USA, and when movies are released in other countries, a different ratings standard is usually applied. So telling non-USA Church members not to view "R-rated movies" would be like telling American LDS not to view "KT" rated films" (the system used in Belgium). And of course, hundreds of movies are made and released in other countries every year that never get an MPAA rating.

So, if we're a "worldwide Church", the guidance has to be worded in such a way that members all over can understand it. I suppose leaders in other countries might give more specific advice to their members regarding which rating guidelines apply to them.

For example, here are the worldwide "certifications" for "The Matrix":

USA:R

Iceland:16

Ireland:15 (re-rating)

Malaysia:18SG

UK:15 (re-rating) (2006) (uncut)

Philippines:PG-13

France:U (with warning)

Brazil:12

India:A

South Africa:10V

Argentina:13

Australia:M

Belgium:KT

Chile:14

Finland:K-16

Germany:16

Hong Kong:IIB

Ireland:18 (cut)

Israel:PG

Italy:T

Japan:PG-12

Netherlands:16

New Zealand:M

Norway:15

Peru:14

Portugal:M/12

Singapore:PG

South Korea:12

Spain:18

Sweden:15

Switzerland:12 (canton of Geneva)

Switzerland:12 (canton of Vaud)

UK:15 (cut)

Canada:13+(Quebec)

Canada:14A (Alberta/British Columbia)

Canada:14 (Nova Scotia)

Canada:AA (Ontario)

Canada:PA (Manitoba)

[FutureTwitBlog]

That's right, the living oracles of God actually spend a lot of time thinking and talking about immorality in the world, including in the media. The Church's business is salvation, not survival or even solving all the ills of the world. I am comfortable with that, but apparently that makes me a prude...

OK you're being funny here, I appreciate that. However my point remains. What about those that can't tell the difference? I'm talking about sexuality here, not violence.

I've put the wrong idea to you. I'm not arguing about how good a person or member you or anyone else is, based on their entertainment habits, I'm not even implying or thinking that. All I'm concerned about is spirituality and the wise use of our agency. The 2 hours it takes me to watch a movie with questionable morals but good entertainment value could be spent doing something equally or more entertaining without running the risk of being exposed to depravity, violence and the nasty side of human behaviour. So I'm not arguing about the intrinsic value of movies, but about the effect they have on our mind, considering the "best gifts" we have been counselled to hold onto in Moroni.

Well you called me prudish and used that to justify that my opinions about movies were exaggerated... I agree I've used the same strategy, so let's just drop that part of the discussion.

My rebuttal stands then. How could banning sex scenes from movies possibly (or likely) lead to oppressing women, forcing them to cover themselves and physically punishing them, as you have suggested?

So, do you believe there is any support for your views in the numerous teachings of our leaders in general conferences and official publications such as the Strength of Youth pamphlet, True to the Faith booklet, Proclamation to the world on the family and Gospel Principles manual? If you think that all these, including the messages of general conference, are mere "advice, different from official doctrine", then what religion are you living? I'm really, completely flabergasted by your attitude, but hopefully you can explain it to me a bit better, so I don't need to conclude that you're just trying to justify your entertainment habits.

A response to the rest of this would be just a rehash of my previous arguments, so I'll just address your last statement here. As I said, you can take a dive off the deep end into any section of doctrine that you wish. I could take the advice about food storage and the apocalyptic end of the world to heart so literally that I quit my job and locked myself in my house with a shot gun. I choose not to do that for obvious reasons. I am encouraging a similar rational and measured attitude towards entertainment choices.

As I said, this argument is almost always impossible to win from the rational, measured side. A member can always make the final appeal to authority as a way to justify their arguments. Do I think that I'm going to find someone who stands up in general conference and says, " It's okay to watch a beach movie with girls in bikinis or a movie with a brief sex scene and you'll still probably make it to heaven?" Well, as you implied, it's not likely. Does that mean that the God of the 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 starts and the 15,000,000,000 year old universe with countless planets stars and galaxies is going to keep you out of the celestial heaven for the next 9,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years after this life because of the 2 hours of your mortal life you spent watching a movie with a brief 10 second sex scene in it? Man, I hope not.

Be as flabbergasted as you want towards my attitude, but is this REALLY what religion is to you? Fighting over 10 second sex scenes in movies and judging other people for watching those scenes? Really? 300 sextillion stars in the known universe and God spends his time on this crap? What?