I'm late sharing this, I know, but a few months ago I was released as the singing time leader. So there will be no more singing time posts. I was a little sad to be released, but I was getting to the point where I was ready for a change. The reason I was released was so that I could be called to teach the senior nursery with my husband.

[Contains some spoilers for “Batman Begins” and “The Dark Knight”]

Batman and Superman—other than having approximately equal popularity--are arguably as complete opposites as one can find in the comic book world.

While Superman is basically the most powerful superhero imaginable—often with new abilities appearing out of nowhere with each new comic or film that's created--Batman, we should note, has no ‘powers’ at all.

It's the first time I'd ever seen the Bishop stop a meeting to clarify and correct doctrine. It was a few minutes after another first: me skipping out on a meeting to report to him what had happened.

Misguided, well-meaning, confused, there are all sorts of 'polite' words one can use in this situation. I adore my Bishop's plainspoken style--Brother B was just WRONG. But I am getting ahead of myself by about 20 minutes, so let's rewind.

A frequent tactic used by critics of the church is to attempt to expose some sinful behavior by Joseph Smith. The strategy seems to be that if you convince people that Joseph Smith committed sins during his life, that you can dismiss his prophetic claims, and with them the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. This might be an effective approach for some people, but that is unfortunate, because prophets are not infallible, and the righteousness of Joseph Smith is impossible to accurately asses, completely irrelevant, and misses the entire point of the restoration.

[Wrap up of this brief series about movie content and ratings. Links to earlier posts: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6]

Imagine this situation:  You are heading back to your apartment one evening after work/school when you run into a friend from next door.

Honestly, I'm not sure if I should be writing this. I could wait for the report from my friends who went to the release party at Changing Hands last night.

But I can't--my seams are stretched enough--I have to get this out there now.

Here's why:

There’s no question:  Church members like seeing other Church members become famous.

Having famous Church members in the news in a variety of professional fields--business, sports, singing and dancing—provides a certain comfort to Latter-Day Saints who can see fellow Saints be successful on a national stage, even beyond the simple “good PR for the Church” standpoint.

Before I get into this, I want to make it clear that I believe that the gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored to the earth, and declaring this is among the most important things we can do. I gladly served a mission for the church in Georgia, and enjoyed it very much. I have been directly involved with getting one individual and one family to join the church since my mission. Now after having said all that, it seems evident to me that I feel less urgency regarding missionary work than some people seem to feel. Particularly the inviting part. I suspect that my level of urgency in inviting is lower than it should be. I would like to review some of the reasons why this might be, and I welcome your corrective advice.

[Part 6 in a brief series about movie content and ratings. Links to earlier posts: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5]

“You know, if the Bible (or Book of Mormon) was a movie, it would be rated R…”

A commonly heard phrase…notwithstanding they HAVE made movies based on the Bible and the Book of Mormon and most of them were not rated R...

For the past six years I've attended church in a ward that had exclusive use of its building. I have just moved into a different ward that has three congregations sharing the same facility on a rotating basis. That means the time of day that I go to my meetings will switch every year.

[Part 5 in a brief series about movie content and ratings. Links to earlier posts: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4]

Editing movies for content has been a controversial idea from the beginning...

[Part 4 in a brief series about movie content and ratings. Links to earlier posts: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3]

Originally, there were four ratings for movies: G, PG, R, and X.

Then came Steven Spielberg...

I'm a tense sort of person, and I carry my stress in my shoulders. I have lots of trouble relaxing. I've often thought that it would be good for me to get a massage. Not just the sort where my husband half-heartedly rubs my shoulders for five minutes, but the sort where you lay down on a special table and get a high quality rub-down from a trained professional for a good half hour or so. While the whole thing sounds very appealing, it also squicks me out.

[Part 3 in a brief series about movie content and ratings. Links to earlier posts: Part 1 | Part 2]

Conventional wisdom says the US—and particularly the conservative watchdogs who discuss movie content the most— are far more tolerant of violent content than sexual content.

Before we discuss whether this should be the case or not—is one of either sex or violence worse than the other?—first let’s see if this is, in fact, true.  Are movie ratings in the US more ‘lenient’ for violent content than they are for sexual content?  Let’s do some research…

[Part 2 in a brief series about movie content and ratings. Links to earlier posts: Part 1]

The movie rating system has taken a lot of abuse over the years, most of it deserved.  However, it’s worthwhile to try to look at the current movie rating system objectively—considering both the pro’s and con’s—and see what the alternatives are, if any.

[Part 1 in a brief series of posts about movie content and ratings from an LDS perspective]

Question: Why are Church members encouraged to keep standards when selecting movies to watch?

Answer: Because many movies contain profanity, sexual images or dialogue, and violence.

Question:  Okay, but why avoid profanity, sex or violence (PSV) in the first place?

I've read many an application of religious principles in the last few years, from the bizarre to the beautiful. (Ah, the joys of the bloggernacle!) The Baron wrote an excellent series on science & religion earlier this year, refuting the 'it can only be one or the other' fallacy. I hadn't realized just how deeply some people out there are firm in their position that anything that says the earth is more than 6500 years old is a ploy by Satan to steal our souls and destroy all faith in a Creator. Until a recent e-mail exchange, that is.

Now I believe.

Imagine a particular type of congenital heart defect that strikes children from birth and dooms them to an early death, usually before they are a year old.   Suppose every year throughout human history about 100 children worldwide are born with this defect and pass away within a year, with really nothing anyone can do about it.

Kaimi asks whether it's hypocritical for the Church to oppose same-sex marriage on a 'marriage = one man and one woman' basis, given its polygamous history.

Is it contradictory to oppose gay marriage while allowing (in principle) for polygamy?  Not at all:  polygamy does not, in fact, violate the 'marriage = one man and one woman' principle.

"Milk before Meat" is how the axiom goes--see 1st Corinthians 3:2.  Not so in the blogosphere, where largely we view ourselves as full-fledged carnivores looking for the juiciest steaks we can find.

Or perhaps not.  It came to me one day as I was sitting in a recent Sunday School class...

There is no 'meat' in the gospel.

Or rather, rephrasing: the milk *is* the meat.