The Waters of Mormon

Nursery Manual

Starfoxy — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:53:15 GMT

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. Our oldest son is in this age group, and our second son isn't quite old enough to go to the junior nursery yet, so it is a bit of a challenge, but we are enjoying it.

Anyhow, one of the things I've found most difficult is adapting the Primary 1 manual for use in the nursery. In the section titled "Adapting this manual for use in the Nursery" it says:

The lessons in this manual are written at a three-year-old level, but many activities in the lessons and the enrichment activities sections are suitable for younger children.

I've always tended to overestimate kids, especially very small ones, and really have a lot of trouble making things simple enough to hold their attention. Most of the time when I try to simplify a lesson it ends up twice as complicated as the original. Just a few weeks ago I was discussing this difficulty with my husband and said "I wonder why the church doesn't put out a nursery manual."

So a few days ago my husband sent me the link to this, "Nursery: Behold Your Little Ones manual." The only thing is I can't find anything about this manual other than that it exists. Is it new? Will my ward get some? Do I have to request it? How can I find out? Will it be online if the answer is no? Would it be a problem if I just bought one and used it anyways?

Do any of you know anything about it? If so, please share.

The Gospel According to Batman

The Baron — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:43:15 GMT

[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.

He has neither power inherent in his genetics like Superman or the X-Men, nor any abilities obtained through miraculous and fortuitous circumstances like Spiderman or Daredevil. While the others listed above were basically given ‘heroic’ ability by divine fate, the character of Bruce Wayne had to seek after and obtain any such heroic ability himself: through training, technology, and—inherent in his chosen persona—a subtle psychological edge. (Most of Batman’s opponents, including in the two most recent films, are similarly grounded in reality…from a comic book perspective, anyway)

Finding parallels to Jesus Christ in Superman’s film resume is fairly easy—and can be done even within the recent Spiderman films as well—but it may seem counter-intuitive to even ask the question about ‘gospel principles as interpreted through Batman’, considering the fundamentally dark, vigilante, anti-hero concept behind the character to begin with.

Nevertheless, the recent big-screen versions of Batman as re-imagined by director Christopher Nolan open the Batman world to a gospel discussion. After having previously discussed Superman and the gospel, perhaps it should now be Batman’s turn.

Nolan’s vision of Batman in 2005’s “Batman Begins” and the recent “Dark Knight” has two elements that differentiate itself from the Batman of earlier decades: one natural, and one surprising.

First off, he has rejected the gothic-yet-campy elements of the earlier films from the ‘80s and ‘90s in favor of a more grounded, realistic environment—as befits a story about a boy whose parents get murdered by a thug in an alley.

Second—and more surprisingly—he has rejected the natural direction that putting a character such as Batman into a world of dark and gritty realism would suggest: Batman is NOT a vigilante or an ‘anti-hero’.

“Your compassion is a weakness your enemies will not share…” says Ducard, Bruce Wayne’s original teacher from the League of Shadows.

“That’s why it’s important,” comes Wayne’s reply, “It’s what separates ‘us’ from ‘them’”.

Indeed, it is Bruce’s sense of compassion and goodness that drives this version of Batman, rather than a brutal form of ends-justify-the-means street justice that could have easily been this Batman’s stock in trade. This is demonstrated early on in “Batman Begins” when Bruce saves the life of someone who, perhaps, should not have been saved, who then later goes on to prove the axiom that ‘no good deed goes unpunished’. ("Didn't I warn you about compassion...")

Inherent in the gospel is the twin pillars of justice and mercy. As Alma discusses with his son Corianton in Alma 42, the principles of justice and mercy seem to be at odds with one another, even though—paradoxically--neither justice nor mercy can be allowed to rob the other one within the divine plan.

In the comic book world, the demarcations between the Good and the Bad are fairly clear. We usually know who the super-heroes are and who the super-villains are, and rarely is there any gray area in between.

Yet that simplistic division of mankind into Good and Bad groups doesn’t work in the real world. The conflict between justice and mercy comes because God is unable to simply divide man into the “Righteous” and the “Wicked”—if “all have come short of the glory of God”, then dividing the souls of man into what are essentially just ‘less imperfect’ and ‘more imperfect’ groups means nothing, regardless of what criteria is used. He can’t draw an arbitrary line which says these sins are ‘small’ and acceptable, but those sins are ‘large’ and are not.

(This is the trap of relative morality, commonly seen where people freely criticize the actions of those whose morals are less than their own, but feel offended when they are criticized themselves by other people with different morals.)

Batman and the League of Shadows, led by Ra’s Al-Ghul, come from similar backgrounds. They are ostensibly Good people who were previously victimized by Bad people. The League’s philosophy is simple—the Bad people of Gotham must be punished. Justice must be served.

And, yet, Bruce Wayne ends up rejecting the League’s fundamental philosophy of ‘justice only’. While aware first-hand of the corruption and darkness within the city of Gotham, Bruce instead represents the side of ‘mercy’—the feeling that the ‘soul’ of Gotham and its inhabitants can still be saved, and that such black-and-white judgments as represented by the League are not the answer.

The Dark Knight

In contrast to the League of Shadows, the Joker—Batman’s foe in the second movie—represents a diametrically opposite paradigm shift: one that’s not black-and-white at all, but completely and utterly gray. There is no ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’, according to the Joker--anyone, even (and especially) the “good” guys will betray their fellow men and do “bad” things under the right circumstances…which the Joker then labors to provide. (“I’m just ahead of the curve!” he adds…)

Batman tells the Joker in one confrontation that “I only have one rule”, which, although unspoken, we know to be that Batman will not kill anyone, no matter how evil. The Joker informs him that he’ll have to break his rule to get what he wants.

Indeed, while he doesn’t kill, Batman is pushed away through the Joker's machinations from the ideal of compassion and mercy he used to maintain—making a variety of moral compromises involving suspect interrogation, illegal abduction, and violations of privacy. All for ostensibly good ends, of course, but originally wasn’t Batman about the ends NOT justifying the means? Wasn’t he, in fact, proving the Joker’s theory correct?

We can see Bruce struggle with the idea of having to become a monster to fight a monster. And, at the end, Batman gains the upper hand and ultimate victory—not by merely foiling the Joker’s plan, but by deliberately choosing to save the Joker’s life, even when there would be basically no moral complaint against him from anyone for not doing so.

Ironically, while allowing him to live, this is essentially Batman raising his middle finger to the Joker’s fundamental philosophy, and showing that even under extreme circumstances his standards can remain in force. In the end, Batman shows that one does not have to embrace the darkness in order to fight it—and, like ‘turning the other cheek’, shows that one can gain a moral victory even without vanquishing an opponent.

Finally, at the very end, Batman comes to decide that Gotham needs a ‘white knight’—someone to look up to as the righteous ideal…and that someone is Harvey Dent, NOT himself. When he chooses instead to take Harvey’s ‘sins’ upon himself for the greater good, we have the final piece in a fundamentally moral Batman which contrary to his dark persona is willing to sacrifice himself for others.

So, no, Batman can never be Superman’s equal in terms of raw power, but both recent Batman films present a solid case for strong moral lessons within the persona of Batman, such that discussions of gospel principles and comparisons to Jesus Christ are not as superfluous as it may have originally seemed.

[Additional Discussion Point: when taking the fall for Harvey Dent, Batman says, “Sometimes, truth isn't good enough, sometimes people deserve more. Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded,” implying that it is better for everyone in the long run to believe Harvey is/was good and Batman bad than the opposite, even though the latter is the ‘truth’.

Does this principle have any relevance or application to either controversial quote from Elder Packer that “not all truths are useful”, or Elder Oaks that “criticism of Church leaders is improper, even if it is true…”? Discuss.]

Say Amen to His Priesthood Until He Does His Home Teaching? Say What?!?

Téa — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 00:49:05 GMT

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.

Elders quorum counselor Brother B had asked for time in Relief Society to talk about home teaching. He passed out little slips of paper so each sister could have information about her home teachers. Encourage them to visit you, he said. you could even make treats for them to lure them there. A few quiet chuckles from his suggestion that we could even make treats to lure them there. It went downhill from there. Over a cliff. Into the ocean.

Brother B opened his scriptures and read verses from the Doctrine & Covenants talking about Priesthood duty, the Oath & Covenant of the Priesthood and declared before us all that if our husbands were not doing their home teaching, the priesthood was no longer in our family. Let me repeat that, because I know I couldn't believe it the first time either. If a man was not doing his home teaching, he was violating the Oath & Covenant of the Priesthood and therefore his priesthood (and any function related thereto) was gone.

A father blessing his baby? Those promises are null and void until he does his home teaching. Healing of the sick? Any ordinance performed by a sub par home teacher? Efficacy on hold until his performance changes. He bore fervent witness of this fundamental priesthood truth.

He emphasized the point several times that we would no longer have a priesthood presence in our homes if our husbands failed in this regard. He pleaded with us to encourage our husbands to do their duty, reminiscent of the way young women are sometimes called upon to see that the young men serve missions, and left. The Relief Society teacher started to teach her lesson. I felt sick. I left.

I learned later that most of the women felt the same way but didn't really know what to do about it, if anything. What if he was right? What if the reason Sister V is still bedridden is because Brother V only met with 2 of his 3 families last month? What if Brother F's son really isn't officially baptized in the eyes of God because his dad's a slacker? Could any tragedy, any delayed blessing, any disunity really be the result of poor home teaching?

"No, no, no, and no."

I hope something like this doesn't happen again anytime soon. I take comfort in knowing I have a Bishop ready & willing to scoop out bad fruit before it contaminates anything else in the Gospel barrel. He takes comfort in knowing that we'll come to him when something stinks.

Mormonism and the Personal Righteousness of Joseph Smith

Eric Nielson — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 02:27:45 GMT

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 assess, completely irrelevant, and misses the entire point of the restoration.

Prophets are Not Infallible

The biblical statement, ‘All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God’ applies to everyone - including prophets of God. Thus to say that Joseph Smith committed sin during his lifetime is to state the obvious. Of course he did. Whatever sins Joseph Smith committed are his problem. He will need to stand before God and be judged by his works like everyone else. If he wants to be exalted he will need to repent. But whether or not he sinned during his life does not determine whether or not he was a prophet.

Impossible to Accurately Assess

Determining just how righteous a person is is tricky business. It is something much better left up to God. We can not really know what someone’s situation is, or what we would do in it. We do not know all of the factors that go into the decisions and behavior of a person. Even someone we know quite well.

This makes it even more difficult when it comes to someone like Joseph Smith. He died over 150 years ago. The only things we have to go on are the rare reports we have about his personality and character. And whether Joseph Smith comes out as righteous or wicked depends heavily on who is telling the story.

What is even more difficult is that Joseph Smith was operating under some pretty extreme circumstances. And all the while claiming inspiration and revelation guiding him. Whether you believe his prophetic claims will largely determine whether you think a given action was sinful or not.

Completely Irrelevant

Whether or not Joseph Smith committed certain sins does not determine whether or not his prophetic claims are true. To illustrate, let’s take two big claims made by Joseph Smith: The First Vision, and the translating of the Book of Mormon. These events either happened or they did not. Proving that Joseph Smith committed some sin in 1834 does not prove that God the Father and Jesus Christ did not visited him in 1820. Exposing a sin of Joseph in Nauvoo would not make the Book of Mormon disappear in a puff of logic, or change its content.

Take the example of David from the Old Testament. His committing of adultery is an established scriptural fact. But this fact does not mean that Goliath was not slain. I do not bring this example up because I feel that Joseph committed similar sins, but to illustrate the point. Hearing about alleged sinful behavior of Joseph Smith might make it less likely for someone to believe Joseph Smith’s claims, but it does not prove that these prophetic claims are not true claims.

Misses the Point

The restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not about Joseph Smith at all. He was just the messenger, not the message. The messages of the restored gospel include the claims that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ, that the priesthood has been restored, and all the associated knowledge regarding the nature of God and the plan of salvation. Joseph Smith is not really part of this message other than that he was chosen to deliver parts of it.

I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, ‘warts and all’. And while some claims about some of his actions might seem disturbing, keep in mind that the righteousness of Joseph Smith is impossible to accurately assess, irrelevant, and misses the entire point of the restored gospel.

At The Movies: Wrap Up--The Power of Knowledge

The Baron — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 23:16:29 GMT

[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.

Your friend: Hey, a bunch of us are heading off to see a movie. Want to come?

You: Which movie?

Your friend: [names a movie you’ve never heard of]

You: Uh…what’s it rated?

Your friend: I don’t know—but, don't worry, it's not too bad from what I hear. So, are you coming? We’re leaving right now…

What do you do? Do you go and take your chances? Or stay home and play it safe…but possibly miss out on a fun experience with your friends for no reason? What does “not too bad” mean? “Not too bad”…for an R-rated movie?

Do you go with your friends and then possibly back out at the theater? (embarrassing)   Walk out in the middle of the movie, if necessary? (Even more embarrassing…) Or--what usually happens—are you just going to end up sitting through a movie that leaves you feeling unclean afterwards, because you don't want to make a scene?   And then vowing to do a better job making decisions next time, even though you still don’t have any more means now of knowing beforehand what the next movie contains than you did this one?

A number of people have shared that this experience happened all the time in college—they want to keep some kind of standards for movies, but they just know so little about all the movies out there, even (and especially) the “popular” ones they see trailers for on TV.

This is a common problem that affects both the singles who go out to movies on dates or with friends, and the families with kids who don’t want to undercut every standard they’ve tried to instill in their children from the time they were born through the content in the DVDs Mom and Dad rented without really knowing what was inside.

Wouldn’t it be nice if you could either confidently say ‘yes’ and be reasonably at ease from the very beginning, or say ‘no’ right at the start without having to lose face backing out after the fact (or sitting through something you don’t want to)?

As a wrap-up to this series on movies and content, here are some final general principles about movie watching.

There is no substitute for research

I don’t watch a lot of movies, but I know movies pretty well. For virtually all the mainstream films released every week, and fair amount of the independent films, I can tell you what it’s about, who’s in it, what it’s rated, why it got that rating, and any preliminary positive or negative buzz about general quality and/or moral issues.

I decided long ago that I did not want to find myself in the position outlined above: where I had to make uninformed decisions about entertainment. If my roommate rented a DVD, or a group of friends were heading to a movie, I wanted to already know before the question was even asked what my answer was going to be.

When it comes to movies, there really is no substitute for research. Someone who cares about movie quality and content and doesn’t want to waste time with movies that don’t meet their standards for either, is going to have to do the (figurative) legwork themselves.   However…

You can’t trust the rating system

As discussed earlier, concerned movie watchers won’t get much help from the rating system, which provides very general information but not much else. And especially when it comes to PG-13 movies—easily the broadest category of the bunch—the rating says next to nothing.

[Personal anecdote: just recently we rented “Flawless” with Demi Moore and Michael Caine, which is rated PG-13. It has no sex, no nudity, no violence, and absolutely no profanity…other than exactly one (1) F-word in the middle, which was almost certainly put there for the sole purpose of giving the movie a higher ‘non-wimpy’ rating to attract more adults (as discussed earlier in this series). Compare this movie to, say, “The Dark Knight”—an admittedly higher-end PG-13 movie--and you start to realize that the rating system really doesn’t help differentiate movies too well…]

[Anecdote #2: The Scera theater in Orem, Utah is well-known for only showing ‘family-friendly’ films. Back in 2003, a movie called “Kangaroo Jack” came out with a surprisingly high level of sexual content and profanity for a PG movie. I had caught the buzz early on, and was mildly surprised when the Scera advertised they were going to be showing it. A couple of days later—almost certainly after some complaints—I saw that they had suddenly removed it from the marquee mid-week and started showing the two-month-old “Other Side of Heaven” again, instead.   It appears even the Scera theater got caught blindly putting their trust in the PG rating without checking it out ahead of time…]

You can’t trust movie marketing, either

Marketing, by definition, has always fundamentally been about ‘deception’, at least to the extent of trying to emphasize the good and hiding the bad. Movie marketing, especially in the last decade, though, has taken the ‘deception’ to completely new heights.

A few things you may not know about movie ad campaigns.

Many movie “critics”…aren’t. As a not-very-well-kept secret, movie studios have always invited obscure movie reviewers from obscure newspapers in obscure small towns in the US to lavish parties where they are given free screenings, free food, and easy access to the stars of the movie for interviews…and in return they give the movie a good review. (Oh, no one forces them to give a good review, of course, but if they don’t, they aren’t invited to the next party, naturally)

Many of the quotes seen on movie ads (“Best Movie of the Year!”, “A Thrill Ride From Start To Finish!”) are also from those obscure critics who are paid by the studio to put their name under good sounding quotes—oftentimes they don’t even see the film before they “praise” it in ads. Some studios have even been so bold as to pass out sheets of pre-written quotes praising the movie before screenings even start, asking the participants to simply check the box next to the quote they want to appear in front of their name on the upcoming movie ad campaign.

If bribing movie critics at junkets doesn’t work, movie studios can simply use imaginary critics—like Sony did in 2000 with “David Manning” from the Ridgefield Press in Connecticut, who was dreamed up by a Sony marketing executive as a vehicle for praising Sony movies. (Discovered after an alert observer noticed that the fictitious Mr. Manning was (a) praising movies that were universally getting bad reviews from everyone else, and (b) praising bad movies that were all from the same company…) In 2001, it was discovered that *five* different movie studios had run television ads the previous year featuring "testimony" from people off the street--who supposedly had just seen the film in question and were sharing their opinion outside of the theater in random interviews--but that actually featured scripted movie studio employees, instead.

Even stranger, some quotes on movie ads are just…quotes. I saw a movie billboard just last week with “The Most Important Movie of the Year!” printed on it…with no name under it! It wasn’t even pretending to be a quote from an actual person who saw the film and whose opinion we might care about—it was just a ‘quote’!

Even ‘real’ critics, like Roger Ebert, get involuntarily involved in this marketing process, with quotes taken out of context and posted on movie ads under his name. [One amusing example: for “Dumb and Dumber” in 1994, the movie ad read, “Made me laugh so loudly, I embarrassed myself”—Roger Ebert. His actual quote from his review, giving the movie two stars out of four: “There is a moment in "Dumb and Dumber" that made me laugh so loudly I embarrassed myself….But because I know that the first sentence of this review is likely to be lifted out and reprinted in an ad, I hasten to add that I did not laugh as loudly again, or very often.”]

Find ‘real’ critics and read them every week

If you ignore movie ads, it’s not too hard to differentiate between real film critics and fake ones. Virtually all real movie critics attended pre-release screenings 1-2 weeks before the general release, and most have websites (or use their host newspaper’s web site) where reviews are posted online for public access before the movie opens. Finding a handful of critics you enjoy reading will allow you to keep up to date on current releases. (Critics rarely agree, of course, so reading a variety of critics is important to get a wider range of opinions about a film)

Rotten Tomatoes is useful for compiling the general positive/negative percentage of current reviews for a movie, as well as direct links to virtually all of the reviews themselves.

Critical reviews will usually discuss the basic premise (so you know if you’d be interested in the first place), and general movie quality (so you know if it’s even worth spending the time and money to see).

However, the traditional movie critic won’t usually comment on objectionable content issues (except indirectly) as that is not their focus. (And they see so many films that what the common Joe off the street might consider a ‘highly violent’ movie may just get a mild shrug from an inured critic, as they’ve probably seen it all before)

Because of that…

Cross-reference with ‘parent watch’ web sites

For specific content analysis, sites like Kids-In-Mind, CommonSenseMedia.org, and Screenit.com will discuss PSV content in films to provide more information to potential viewers to differentiate, for example, ‘heavy’ and ‘light’ PG-13’s.

Remember, context matters, though. The downside to content analysis is that context (and film quality) is not generally considered. Most PSV sites will report the number of swear words, but generally won’t discuss contextual moral issues that may also be of interest. Is there anywhere to go for both?

“Moral” film critics can give you the best of both worlds

Some film critics write specifically from a ‘moral’ perspective—looking at not just how many swear words there are but any deeper, contextual moral issues that religious believers may want to be aware of. Want to know whether the Harry Potter series is really problematic for believing Christians? Or how true the Narnia films or “The Golden Compass” were to their respectively Christian and atheist source material? These are the questions that normal movie critics and the parental watch sites won’t usually be able to answer.

DecentFilms.com is by far the best site out there presently for intelligent (and morality-based) film analysis. Run by Catholic Steven Greydanus, Decent Films will discuss film quality and morality tied together in a remarkably perceptive and intelligent manner. The only major flaw is that he just doesn’t write about all that many films. (The Christianity Today movie section is also a good resource for similar analysis, as is the Faith & Film Critics Circle)

And one last principle before we close:

You do not have to justify your standards in movies to anyone

If you want to keep strict standards for movies, you do not have to apologize to anyone—even if you end up skipping out on many of the ‘cool’ movies that your friends are all seeing and talking about. Remember, movies just aren’t that important, and if “The Dark Knight” or even “Wall-E” doesn’t meet your standards, it doesn’t really matter. Five years from now, neither you nor anyone else is going to care that you never ended up seeing it.

If your standards for movies are looser than others you know, you don’t have to apologize to anyone else, either. The movies you watch are your business.

As it happens, I don’t watch R-rated movies, but my wife and I know plenty of people who do. That doesn’t bother me—that’s their business. What does bother me is the constant psychological need some people seem to have to try to justify their standards to me (and others) even when we haven’t asked.

“Yeah, it’s a pretty violent movie…but, you know, it’s a WAR movie, and that’s just how war really is, so it’s okay…”

“Yeah, it’s got a lot of sex and nudity in it, but it’s actually got a message against casual sex, so it’s okay…”

“Oh,it's not that 'bad' a movie...there’s just this ONE part that’s really bad in the middle, but the rest is really okay…”

“Yeah, it got a lot of bad content…but, you know, it’s the same sort of stuff you can find in the Bible, so it's okay…”

You know what? Shut up.

If you want to watch R-rated movies, then just watch R-rated movies--you don’t have to defend yourself to anyone. But, PLEASE, stop trying to tell me all the reasons you think it's okay and "not that bad". No one wants to hear it. Just set your own standards and live with them, and let others do the same...

Breaking Down (for) Breaking Dawn

Stady Canton — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 05:55:43 GMT

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:

Bella finally persuades Edward to make her a vampire. After this successful transformation, Jacob confronts her, cursing her for becoming his (im)mortal enemy. Bella, with no hesitation, slaughters Jacob. Edward is horrified by the monster he's created out of his love, and succeeds in a second suicide attempt much like the first one in the series. Bella, having followed him to Italy, tries to take out as many of Edward's killers as she can. Bella dies in the battle and the Romeo-Juliet theme is complete.

That's what I would like to read, anyway. Does anyone out there recommend I borrow a copy to find out how Stephanie Meyer did it?

The Plight of LDS Actors

The Baron — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:43:31 GMT

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.

If I (or one of my kids) wants to be a successful entrepreneur (or musician, or athlete, or writer) it’s nice to be able to point to some famous person and say, “See, he or she is a faithful Church member while also being successful at career X”. Having famous and/or successful Mormons sends the message outwardly that Church members are ‘normal’ and play regular roles in regular society—we’re not all cooped up in armed compounds in southern Utah or Texas or something--but also sends the message inwardly that secular success and spiritual success can mix: that faithful Saints don’t necessarily have to choose one or the other.

Of course, in order for this to really count, those famous Mormons have to be faithful and active also. Just being a member doesn’t mean much: if those famous Mormons are not currently active and practicing—even if the reasons for not being active have nothing to do with their chosen profession--they don’t really work as ‘examples’ for other Saints who might want to believe that they can be successful in their career without being forced to compromise their beliefs somewhere along the line.

In most professions, one can find any number of active and inactive Church members. Acting, however, seems to be an outlier.

There are a few well-known actors whose names are on the records of the Church, but virtually all of them are not currently practicing. That may be partially a coincidence as some of them—such as “Enchanted” actress Amy Adams—simply grew up in an inactive LDS family, and were never active themselves in adulthood even before becoming involved with acting.

Yet, that doesn’t cover every LDS actor and actress, whose ranks include one returned missionary who’s currently being seen in a $300 million movie this summer.    Is succeeding in the modern day movie/TV industry AND being a faithful Latter-Day Saint inherently more difficult than other professions? Do LDS actors have to choose, to some extent, between succeeding in acting and being active in the Church? Without some prominent counter-examples, a lot of circumstantial evidence points to ‘yes’.

This issue has been raised by the recent developments regarding LDS film alum Kirby Heyborne. Kirby has starred in, among other films, “The Singles Ward”, its sequel, “The RM”, “The Best Two Years”, and “Saints and Soldiers”.   Kirby has, more or less, been the face of LDS cinema from the beginning, although the state of LDS cinema being what it is, it’s perfectly reasonable that one can’t easily make a living off of it, and Kirby has been living in California making a go of acting in non-Church stuff as well.

What kind of ‘non-Church stuff’ that included came to the fore in June when Kirby appeared in a Miller Lite commercial, causing no small amount of controversy back in Utah. Just recently, the DearElder.com website, which has featured billboards with Kirby’s picture for years along I-15 in Utah, has announced that they are searching for a new likeness to be the spokesperson.

Coincidence?   While the official statement makes note of the need to “update our current advertising and billboards” which were all four years old, the remainder of the statement makes pretty clear between the lines what the catalyst for the change was: “Going forward, we have made a deliberate decision to select advertising that is consistent with our message of missionary support, service and values…”

Kirby’s response: "I'm a temple-worthy member that loves his wife and kids, and fulfills his calling at church and does his home teaching. And yet I'm going to play characters that might have moral dilemmas, or do a commercial -- or whatever it is -- because my job is the way that I provide for my family,"

"If I could do [Church films] for the rest of my life, and make enough money to support my family, I would do that in a heartbeat. But in reality, there's no way."

That’s a very reasonable response…and that’s actually the problem. In fact, that may have been the absolute worst thing Kirby could have said.

So, basically, after all the work he’s put into pursuing an acting career, he still found himself stuck doing...beer commercials? That's the only work he could find for himself to support his family in the end? And that’s what aspiring LDS actors have to look forward to, when trying to make it in modern day Hollywood?

Even if Kirby had said something along the lines of, “I had other opportunities for work…but I decided to do a beer commercial deliberately because I’m a BAD MORMON!” that may have actually been better in the long run, because that would at least have presented some hope to future actors that they would still have some choice in the matter. As it is, what does the future generation of LDS actors have to look forward to? “If Kirby Heyborne is forced to sell beer on TV to feed his family, what hope is there for me?”

Now, being a successful actor (or musician, or writer, or artist) is inherently a difficult endeavor, and (inside or outside the Church) the failures will far outnumber the successes. However, the question still remains whether the acting industry is just inherently incompatible with a faithful LDS lifestyle. Kirby Heyborne may have wanted to be the exception to that rule when he left Utah, but I wonder if he’s ended up providing ample proof of it, instead...

The Urgency of Missionary Invitations

Eric Nielson — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 02:29:15 GMT

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. Some of the reasons include:

Everyone is going to hear the gospel eventually anyway.

It is commonly believed that prior to final judgment every individual will have a fair chance to hear the gospel and accept the ordinances. If this is the case (and I believe it is) then should there not be an emphasis on the quality of the invitation rather than the immediacy of the invitation?

Preparation is the most important step.

The commitment pattern is prepare, invite, and follow up. Of these three I believe prepare to be the most important step. There is a reason why member invitations have a greater chance of success than missionary invitations. It is because the members are patiently preparing family, friends, and neighbors to hear the gospel, and the missionaries are inviting random strangers like mad. Both approaches can work, and I believe the combination is a good one. If members were to dramatically ramp up the frequency of invitations to hear the gospel they might have some good initial success, but quickly run out of friends to invite. They would then have to invite randomly like the missionaries do.

The spirit should motivate this.

I believe an important part of a quality invite is the timing. The only way to know the proper timing for sure is to follow the spirit. In spite of some inspiring stories, missionary tracting is a brute force approach to inviting. Forcing invitations on others before they are ready can have negative results in the short term - particularly if the invitations are motivated by something other than the spirit.

Fear of rejection and negative results.

If I make a serious invitation to someone to hear the gospel who has not shown any interest, and whom I feel is not prepared, I fear that a rejection is likely to come. With some possible negative results. Why take the risk? Would it not be better to do some preparation first and see if there is at least some interest?

Anyway, our stake is insisting that every organization in each ward should have its own mission plan with goals reported to the stake each month. These organizations are going to be held accountable for these goals (whatever that means). The emphasis is on invitations. So help a brother out. Please help me understand why I should have a higher level of urgency when it comes to missionary invitations.

At The Movies: Visual vs Printed Mediums

The Baron — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:19:22 GMT

[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.

As an objective analysis of content (as compared to just an attempt to rationalize watching the latest violent action movies) it is true that the Bible and the Book of Mormon both contain violent and sexual content.

Does that necessarily make them the equivalent of ‘R-rated’? Well, it depends…

Movies and books are separate mediums. Movie ratings are determined not just on pure content, but how that content is presented. There have been many World War II movies, for example—many of which cover exactly the same battle, even—but which have vastly different movie ratings. War (in real life) may be “R-rated” (or worse), but that doesn’t mean a presentation of war in a movie needs to be equivalently R-rated. (Obviously not, since plenty of non-R-rated war movies exist) Battle scenes can be portrayed in graphic or non-graphic fashion, both of which can get the point across with varying amounts of blood.

Books are even more abstract than movies. Seeing words on a page can be a fundamentally different experience than seeing fixed images on a screen—those differences may be one primary reason there is no equivalent ‘rating’ system for books, as for movies. What if the ‘rating’ can differ, depending on the reader?

Take this phrase from Alma 43:

“And the work of death commenced on both sides, but it was more dreadful on the part of the Lamanites, for their nakedness was exposed to the heavy blows of the Nephites…which brought death almost at every stroke.”

Or from Genesis:

“And [Adam and Eve] were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed…”

Were the section from Alma dramatized in a future movie based on the Book of Mormon, it certainly has the potential to be very R-rated—especially in, say, Mel Gibson’s hands. But would it *have* to be? Not at all—the Church has already produced several short films and segments featuring battles between the Nephites and Lamanites that did not reach anything near “R-rated” levels of violence.

In addition to “The Passion of the Christ”, the scourging and crucifixion of Christ has been portrayed in any number of other movies and videos, some of which were R-rated, but many of which were not. They did not need to be to get the primary point across.

(Likewise, the LDS temple endowment video--wisely--portrays Adam and Eve without any actual nudity. You can imagine that filming things differently for the sake of ‘realism’ would be counter-productive in the end…)

Basically, filmmakers have—especially today in the age of CGI--a variety of methods at their disposal to portray equivalent content in different ways, with differing levels of realism and detail.

The printed page takes this distinction to another level. When you read a section of the Bible, Book of Mormon (or any book) that features violence or sex, what mental picture gets conjured in your mind? Are those mental pictures PG or R-rated? Can they realistically be either?

I submit they can—just as filmmakers can imagine the same scene in different levels of explicitness, our minds can do the same. Therefore, it is arguable that ‘ratings’ may not apply to books to the same extent that they apply to movies—and that the Book of Mormon or any literary work may not be able to be described as inherently R-rated, because reading the text allows several layers of abstraction between the words and whatever quality of images they create in the mind.

Movies do not have this flexibility—while filmmakers have options as to how to film the scene in the first place, once it is filmed, we (the viewer) have fewer options in how to interpret it. Being a visual medium, movies move images directly from the screen into the mind without a go-between layer. It is very difficult for anyone to actively ‘reinterpret’ images from the movie screen into less-explicit mental images in the brain. (This lack of dynamic interpretation is one of many reasons many people inherently prefer books to movies to begin with…)

Now, this doesn’t necessarily mean all books are therefore content-neutral. Oftentimes the level of detail described in the book influences the level of ‘mental freedom’ the reader has in creating images of their own—the more detailed and explicit the description in the text, the more the words lend themselves to specific and explicit interpretations in the mind.

While the Alma section mentioning the “work of death” is a little vague in the details, a more explicit section of the BOM (such as Ammon cutting off the arms of Lamanites while defending Lamoni’s flocks, for example) may be judged to be inherently more violent simply because it’s a little more specific in the details. Some books dwell in great detail on violent or sexual acts, while others leave things to the imagination—thus it could be said some books can approximate the experience of seeing a movie more than others, for better or worse.

It’s arguable, then, that reading the words, “…and the warrior swung and cut off his opponent’s head with his axe”, or “…she walked into the room and took off her clothes” is still inherently different than actually seeing images of the naked woman, or the severed head, onscreen. Arguably safer, to an extent, because words are inherently more abstract in interpretation.

What does this mean? Only that referencing the violent and sexual content of some sections of scripture--often in an attempt to undercut the moral philosophy of rating and editing movie content--oversimplifies the inherent difference between images and words. And that there may be good reasons for judging content in movies differently than content in books...

Next: Wrap up...

Equity or foolishness?

Belladonna — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:33:15 GMT

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.

I am accustomed to going to church in the morning. That works for me. This year will still do that. Next year I will get bumped to the afternoon schedule. Harrumph! Grumble! Drats! I get it that change is a part of life, and I get it that we live in a dynamic, evolving faith. But for crying out loud, this disruption of my routine seemed to serve no real point.

I was whining a bit to my husband about not looking forward to having to change schedules year after year. Just when we get ourselves adapted to an AFTERNOON way of worship, then it will switch again. Lamenting this fate, I said that I wished they would just assign us all a particular time and then STICK WITH IT. I wouldn't even care if I got put in the afternoon slot, which to my way of thinking is less desirable. I wanted something that would stick.

My husband is the kind of guy who does not question and does not complain when it comes to church matters. He accepts whatever comes down the pike with absolute trust and faith. Me, I question gravity. In the end I accept whatever it is that the prophet and the local leaders ask. But whether it is the suggestion to wear only one pair of earrings or shifts in how we conduct ourselves during temple ceremonies, I am forever speculating why things are done this way or that. Over the years my husband and I have had our share of interesting discussions from these two different approaches.

So when I was challenging the policy of alternating time schedules, my beloved patiently explained that the reason for this was to be fair to everyone who shared the building, so no one group got stuck with the early or the late shift. I balked. Disrupting lives is equity? I don't think so, I insisted. In EVERY ward there will be people who, like me, prefer mornings and others who would rather go in the afternoon. But does it serve anyone well - particularly families with young kids-to continually be changing the routine? Besides, I declared, if they REALLY did it out of "fairness" then EVERY ward should change times, even if there is only one ward in the building. He rolled his eyes and said I was just being silly. Maybe I was. But does the time change really make building use more "fair"?

The reason I can accept it is that I know we are members of a GROWING, LIVING, CHANGING faith. In small ways and big ways I understand that "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." (Article of Faith #9)

Still, I do not think this musical chairs time of meetings has anything to do with inspiration or revelation. I think it is tradition, and not one I appreciate. I accept there WILL be changes in my church. But for crying out loud, why do I have to keep getting used to a whole new Sabbath routine every year? Maybe I'm just whining because I don't want to give up my Sunday afternoon nap,

But what it did raise for me was the whole issue of splitting hairs between what parts of the LDS way of life are DOCTRINE and therefore NOT open for debate and what parts are simply TRADITION. We live in a world church. Jesus Christ is the Savior whether you are LDS in China or Chicago. Thomas B. Monson is the Prophet whether you are in Newark or the Netherlands. The Book of Mormon is True every bit as much in Ghana as it is in Kalamazoo. But there are some practices and policies and ways of doing things that I suspect have a lot more to do with cultural traditions than what God sees as the right way for us to live. Those are the areas where I have no qualms about challenging with questions. But how does one really tell which is which?

I am reminded of the the verse in the D& C that says:

"Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a lawwhich was temporal neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created. " (D&C 29:34)

Maybe I should just put off the natural man and quit my whining.

At The Movies: The Paradox of Edited Movies

The Baron — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:04:53 GMT

[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.

The principle behind edited movies is fairly obvious and sound: most movies don’t really need the PSV content they contain to be effective as a story or as an art form. In many cases, the PSV material is unnecessary, tangential, and often completely superfluous—the movie experience for most films doesn’t change that drastically with the adult material removed.

(Profanity is often excused as ‘that’s how people talk…’ That’s a self-fulfilling prophecy, though—people use profanity in part because they’re constantly exposed to movies where ‘that’s how people talk…’)

When you get down to it, how much of the PSV content in any movie today is really necessary either for plot, tone, or mood? Thus, why NOT remove it and allow people to see the good stuff and avoid the bad?

[As an anecdote, a couple of years ago my wife and I watched the TV version of a movie that was originally R when released in theaters. Afterwards, I got online as I usually do after watching a movie, and perused some of the reviews and online discussion, and found a large chunk of discussion revolved around the full nude scene of the lead actress. This scene wasn’t in the TV version, of course, but as my wife and I discussed it afterwards, we couldn’t figure out for the life of us where that scene would have been in the movie we saw. Depending on your point of view, that was either an excellent job of editing… or a spectacularly poor one.]

Editing movies is not a new thing—movies have been edited by third parties other than the original filmmakers for years, usually for TV and airplane broadcasts. Nevertheless, when companies such as CleanFlix (based in Orem, Utah) started providing “cleansed” movies for interested parties as a legitimate business model, objections (and lawsuits) were raised.

There are two primary forms of creating edited movies:

A company sells consumers a copied version of the original DVD, with ‘objectionable’ material edited out previously. CleanFlix follows this model, and this method has been the primary catalyst of the adverse legal response from the movie studios and directors.
A company sells a special DVD player with add-on filters that dynamically edit the DVD while it is playing. In this case the DVD is the same, and can be played ‘unedited’ at any time. As such, this method avoids virtually all the legal entanglements associated with the first method—after all, it’s essentially no different than fast-forwarding or skipping chapters on a DVD you already own—and looks likely to become the predominant format for edited movies in the future. (See ClearPlay)

The fact that TV and airplane broadcasts are common and largely accepted by studios and directors inherently undercuts the complaints by those same studios and directors about CleanFlix-style companies “neutering” their films of content.   Nevertheless, legally defending the CleanFlix method has proven to be problematic (although ClearPlay-style editing appears to be in the clear).

Given that my wife (“The Baroness”) and I (a) like movies, (b) don’t watch R-rated movies, though, and (c) live in Utah, where opportunities to find edited movies are plentiful, one would think that we’d be prime targets to watch edited films on a regular basis.

Surprisingly, though, we never have. Other than an occasional TV version, we’ve never rented, or purchased a ‘clean’ film.

Why? That’s the tricky part—I expected, myself, once the technology became prevalent, that I would be a regular patron of the local companies that provide edited films, but each time the opportunity presents itself, I turn away.

There are still some concerns with edited movies—enough in my mind such that I’ve never seriously had the urge to become a regular consumer, despite believing in the general principle that most PSV content in movies is superfluous and unnecessary. Let’s look at some of the issues:

Artistic purity:

As a movie purist, I kind of want to see what the writer and/or director originally intended, not some arbitrary subset of it determined by a third party. If a movie happens to be dark, ugly, and violent, perhaps it should be seen in its full dark, ugly, and violent form…or not seen at all. (There are plenty of other movie choices, after all) This shares essentially the film directors’ primary objection to clean films in the first place.

In similar discussions, others have made the analogy that edited movies are comparable to a sanitized version of Playboy magazine with black bars painted across the ‘naughty’ parts, or perhaps pictureless altogether. While ‘clean’, one would have to question what the point would be of creating such a magazine in the first place. If you’re reading Playboy, your purpose is to see nudity. If your purpose is NOT to see nudity, you wouldn’t be reading a ‘clean’ version of Playboy anyway--you’d just find another magazine.

Likewise, if the goal is to avoid nudity or violence in movies, why spend the effort to clean the ones with nudity and violence to begin with, versus seeking out other movies without the problematic material in the first place that are just as good as the first group.

Supporting the ‘enemy’:

Buying an R-rated DVD, or buying an edited DVD from someone who had to buy an R-rated DVD in the first place in order to edit it and sell it to you, looks the same on the movie studios’ gross income reports. If the intent is to financially encourage movie studios to create cleaner films through consumer pressure, being a patron of edited films doesn’t really work.

Like that edited version of Playboy, you may feel morally superior for finding a way to get some value out of a product without wading through the ‘smut’…but you still end up being one of many financial supporters of that ‘smut’ in the long run, right? In that aspect, edited films may actually be counter-productive…

The appearance of evil:

Say a high council speaker came to your ward and spoke on the topic of avoiding debt. In the middle, he says, “An article in last month’s Playboy magazine discussed some statistics about worsening economic trends…” Would the ward members be a little surprised?

Perhaps in his mind he’s thinking, “Of course, I only read the edited version of Playboy. If anyone in the congregation is thinking otherwise without taking the time to find out the truth, that’s *their* problem…”

Does he have that luxury, though?   Do any of us have the luxury of controlling exactly how other people react to things we do and say? Wouldn’t that speaker be running a great risk of losing credibility amongst a fair number of people in the congregation, despite it being ‘their fault’?   Wouldn’t the wiser path be to avoid potential stumbling blocks and misunderstandings by not presenting a situation where you have to hope people are giving you the benefit of the doubt?

The principle of ‘the appearance of evil’ gets mocked regularly in the online community, with a number of people seemingly of the opinion that one can take a can of Coors Light, dump it out into the sink, fill it with orange juice, and take it out in public without any consequences. (“Hey, if anyone misunderstands without finding out the truth, that’s *their* fault…”)   Do you have that luxury?

Likewise, if you’re on a date and start casually quoting or referencing “Pulp Fiction” or “Sin City” do you have the luxury of assuming your date won’t assume you just revealed something about your standards in movies?

Short of speaking “defensively” all the time (“I was watching the TV-edited version of “Braveheart” the other day, and…”, “There was that scene in Goodfellas—it was the edited version with all the violence and profanity removed, by the way—where…”) which is just going to sound awkward and self-righteous anyway, it may be valuable to actually appear to have standards, if, in fact, you actually do have standards for movies.

Perhaps there is value in not trying to be ‘in’ the R-rated world, while not ‘of’ the R-rated world, if you’re among people who aren’t going to be able to tell the difference…

“Hey, they’re just movies…”

My wife and I are movie fans, but we keep things in perspective. Movies are movies, they are not religion. Not seeing any one movie really makes no difference in the end. There are no movies that MUST be seen, even to the extent that you have to accept an edited form if you must. We just go on to something else.

During my time at BYU and in Utah County, there have been two cultural ‘controversies’ regarding movies. The second of the two, “The Passion of the Christ” in 2004, was discussed earlier. The first was “The Matrix” in 1999.

Now, lots of BYU students watch R-rated movies: in my highly informal and unscientific analysis, probably 75% of the guys I knew had seen “Braveheart”, and 75% of the girls had seen or owned “Pretty Woman”, even though most of them didn’t speak about it openly. “The Matrix”, though, was the first movie that brought the R-rated issue right out into the forefront. Because (1) It was said to be a ‘light’ R, and (2) it was the “IT” movie of the year, and you *had* to see it if you were anybody.

That was then… Now, in 2008, if you didn’t happen to ever see “The Matrix” or either of the sequels, does it really matter?   No one cares. What seems to be the “in” thing at the time will almost never matter in the long run.

A co-worker of mine doesn’t watch PG-13 movies, and so skipped the Lord of the Rings series in its entirety. He may have felt out of place at the time, but now, just a few years later, does anyone care?   Does it make any difference at all in the quality of life he leads, versus those of us ‘unwashed heathen’ who did?

Is it impossible to have a true and strong testimony of the Atonement of Jesus Christ without seeing “The Passion…”? Hardly…

Movies just aren’t that important, and skipping a movie that’s getting great reviews because it doesn’t meet your standards of content is not a big deal. Another movie that's just as good is right around the corner.

In short, while I believe edited movies have a legal right to exist, I don’t believe they are strictly necessary for movie-goers who care about content. And, their existence may be counter-productive if the intent was to encourage the creation of better films.

Next: Books vs. Movies -or- "If the Bible were a movie, it would be rated R..."

At The Movies: Ratings Creep & The Reign of the PG-13

The Baron — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:36:25 GMT

[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...

Starting with his breakthrough movie “Jaws” in 1977, and continuing with “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom”, and his executive-produced “Gremlins” (the latter two released within a month of each other in 1984), Spielberg created films that pushed the boundaries for what was considered PG movies at the time, while not really falling into the “Adults Only” R category, either. When a great many parents complained about seeing someone’s beating heart being snatched out of their body and/or a green gremlin exploding inside a microwave in a supposedly “child-friendly” PG movie, Spielberg himself suggested to the MPAA that perhaps another rating was needed, to specify movies suitable for older kids, but not necessarily younger kids.

Later that year, “Red Dawn” was released in the US bearing the new PG-13 rating, defined as a subset of the PG rating that gave the implicit warning that it contained material unsuitable for young kids—hence the 13 cutoff line--but not to the extent that it deserved an R.

Since PG-13 was named and conceived as a subset of PG movies (to my knowledge, no originally rated R movie was downgraded to PG-13 at the time) the initial thought was its creation would attract opposition from filmmakers, who found their films that would have originally received just a PG rating under the old system, were now given a higher rating which would (in theory) limit their audience.

It didn’t take long, though, to discover that the new rating seemed to ADD viewers instead of subtract: that a fairly substantial segment of the population—teenagers—largely viewed the PG rating as “kids stuff” and found the implication of material with an “edge” to it attractive (considering they were largely blocked from seeing the R-rated stuff, anyway). Conveniently, teenagers were also the most likely demographic to re-watch movies they like in the theater time and time again, and the PG-13 rating soon became the rating of choice for big budget Hollywood films.

Since 2000, PG-13 movies have brought in close to $35 billion dollars in ticket sales, versus $17 billion for R-rated movies, despite having over 600 more R-rated movies released in theaters over that time period. 19 of the top 30 grossing movies of all time are PG-13, with only one of them (“The Passion of the Christ”) being R.

Is the dominance of the PG-13 rating a good or bad thing? Depends on your point of view…

Many conservative watch groups consider the higher money-making potential of the PG-13 versus the R as a good thing, since it appears to give Hollywood a financial incentive to tone down the ‘objectionable’ material in a film in order to reach a larger audience. If true, that should result in ‘cleaner’ films, right? (As it stands there are still more R-rated movies released every year, but that’s largely due to the smaller independent films which heavily skew R—mainstream Hollywood films are primarily PG-13.)

Unfortunately, the financial incentive works in the opposite direction as well:

Studios will often add ‘objectionable’ material to an originally PG movie in order to get the higher rating, and avoid seeming ‘wimpy’. One film in 1998 famously dubbed in (badly) an F-word in post-production for the sole purpose of avoiding the PG rating.
Studios will also try to get as close to the R-rating line as possible without going over, and/or give the MPAA subtle pressure to give them a PG-13 rating anyway if they do go over. (Part of the R-rating trend within independent film is that independent films are more likely to get an R in the first place, with a major studio film more often getting the ‘benefit of the doubt’.)

The end result is that the dominance of the PG-13 may actually lead to an increase in ‘objectionable’ material in many cases, along with a broadening of the PG-13 rating into what previously would have been R territory. Which means the current PG-13 culture may actually expose more people to “R-rated” material, but without the benefit of the “Adults Only” warning beforehand. Arguably, it may actually be better, from a conservative perspective, if the R-rating were more popular among movie goers than PG-13, because that would push the incentive to broaden the R-rating downward, instead of the PG-13 rating upward, resulting in cleaner PG-13 movies in the long run.

“Ratings Creep”

Which leads to a fundamental question: Are ratings looser and more lenient now, than they used to be? While the PG-13 culture discussed above suggests an obvious response to this question, the answer may not be as simple as you think…

Strictly speaking, if you’re comparing pre-1984 ratings to post-1984 ratings, the creation of the PG-13 rating in itself means ratings are a lot ‘stricter’ now than they used to be, as virtually all movies released in 2008 that are PG-13 would most likely have been released as PG in 1982. Viewers not aware of the ratings change and who were judging PG movies from 30 years ago alongside PG movies released today would most certainly conclude that ratings today are a LOT stricter than they used to be.

Many of the parental watch-groups argue that the creation of the PG-13 rating now allows filmmakers to slowly move R-rated material (such as nudity or F-words) into PG-13 movies, when previously (in theory) they wouldn’t have been allowed to do so in a PG-rated movie.

Except, nudity and F-words *were* allowed in PG movies from previous decades, even after the PG-13 was created:

"Sixteen Candles", "Big", "Eight Men Out", and "Beetlejuice" received PG ratings despite prominent F-words in the dialogue, with the latter three being released after 1984 when the PG-13 rating was available.
The two "Airplane" movies and 1980 Best Picture Oscar winner “Kramer vs. Kramer” all featured female nudity, yet still had PG ratings.
“Whale Rider” received a PG-13 rating in 2002 for a brief glimpse of a bag of marijuana. “The Goonies” (written and produced by…wait for it…Steven Spielberg) got away with much larger drug content than that in 1985 with its PG-rating intact.
Today, a movie with a single ‘damn’ automatically gets moved from G to PG. Not so in the olden days, where classic films such as “Gone With The Wind” and “Planet of the Apes”—the former containing the most famous ‘damn’ in movie history—still had G ratings.

It’s hard to conceive of any G or PG rated movie released today having quite the same content as these examples above, and that seems to point towards ratings getting stricter in the 21st century, rather than looser.

Now, there certainly is some evidence of change in the opposite direction. The “standard” for F-words used in PG-13 movies used to be one, then two, and I’ve seen a couple of films in the last few years that had three, so there’s probably good cause to believe that the ratings are getting looser in that respect. (And we’ll ignore the question for now of whether there’s a significant difference between hearing the F-word four times in a movie versus three…)

Also, some of the extremely violent R-rated horror films of recent years seem to have reached far beyond any comparable film of yesteryear (although one can argue this is only because technology has improved such that films can be much more realistic, and thus impossible to properly compare to older films…)

One can probably compile lots of evidence in both directions, which probably serves to prove only that the ratings system was, is, and always will be arbitrary and subjective—without necessarily moving in one clear direction or another as a whole.

Viewing PG-13 in perspective

Church members have a variety of standards regarding movies: some will watch just about anything, some will watch some R-rated movies (but not the “bad” ones, of course), some don’t watch any R-rated movies, and some don’t watch anything rated R or PG-13 at all.

Trying to argue what standards for movies Church members “should” have is a recipe for disaster--and I won't bother attempting it today. However, I end up defending the PG-13 at times among my friends and peers, if only to the extent that the R-rating and the PG-13 rating have some fundamental differences that should be kept in mind—it’s not just a matter of degrees.

R-rated movies receive the R-rating because of profanity, sex, and violence—the standard PSV categories—and I know of no R-rated movie that has received its rating for any other reason than those three.

While PG-13 movies often DO contain PSV material, of course, that’s not the only reason PG-13 ratings are given. As we saw with “Whale Rider”, PG-13’s can be given by ‘drug content’ alone. (I know of no movie rated R for drug content alone, although if the smoking ban discussed earlier takes effect, this may change…)

A movie featuring a serial killer (such as Richard Dutcher’s Brigham City), even if there’s no direct on-screen violence, is inherently a PG-13 movie, no matter what. Likewise, any movie that features a dead corpse…or an undead corpse, or other scary creatures are not for seven-year-olds. Those kinds of movies should be PG-13…yet do not fall under the traditional PSV categories. “Scary images” are not enough, in my mind, to make a movie ‘inappropriate’ for adults.

In short, I believe you can find PG-13 movies that, as the cliché goes, you would watch with the prophet from start to finish without feeling ashamed of any of the content, because the ‘adult material’ that makes it PG-13 can be fundamentally different than ‘objectionable material’. Other than “The Passion…”, perhaps, I don’t know if you can say that about any R-rated films, although, of course, what people find objectionable—particularly in the broad category of ‘violence’—will vary person to person…

Next: The paradox of edited movies

Professional Massages, Yea or Nay?

Starfoxy — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:22:40 GMT

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. First off, I get nervous anytime I get personal services from someone I haven't met before, from OBs to hair dressers. For example, my mom has always cut my hair. Once I went to Supercuts for a trim and the whole thing was ridiculously unnerving, and I've never gone back even though it was a perfectly normal trim and I looked just fine.

The biggest thing though, is the nudity and the touching. As a married, garment-wearing sort of person I find the idea of getting a professional massage kind of... off.

So convince me. Explain to me why it's perfectly fine for a complete stranger to put his/her hands all over me. Or conversely explain why it is an offense to basic decency to get a common health related service from a trained professional.

At The Movies: Sex vs. Violence

The Baron — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 22:34:17 GMT

[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…

Kids-in-Mind was introduced in the previous section—a parental watch-group who rates movies in the standard PSV categories from 0 to 10, with 10 being the worst. As with all similar sites, the PSV values are subjective and have any number of cases that I (or anyone) could nitpick about, but they at least give us a starting point for the discussion. (And, conveniently, they have a searchable archive that makes database queries such as those I use below easy to do…)

First, let’s look at the totals—here are the aggregate total for all movies listed in the KIM database for each of the eleven possible values for profanity, violence, and sexual content. The data is also put into a line graph for more convenient viewing:

A few observations from these results:

At low levels, there appear to be more movies with sexual content than violent content, however they switch after level “6” with a greater number of movies judged to be highly violent, than highly sexual.
Filmmakers certainly have an obvious ‘comfort zone’ for profanity, don’t they?

How about ratings themselves, as they relate to content? To analyze the effect on movie ratings, we need to control for content a little bit…

Let’s pick mid-range values for sex and violence, say 4 and 5, and look for movies with values of 4-5 in those categories, but smaller values (3 or under) for the other two categories, so that we’re reasonably confident that the sex/violence content was the primary catalyst for whatever rating it received. Then, we should be able to analyze the actual ratings received by each of these movies and see if violent content in movies does, in fact, receive more lenient ratings than sex and nudity.

For movies with sex/nudity levels 4 and 5:
G: 0
PG: 11
PG-13: 43
R: 3

For movies with violence levels 4 and 5:
G: 11
PG: 120
PG-13: 65
R: 3

Here are the profanity totals, for completeness:
G: 0
PG: 15
PG-13: 115
R: 13

Two observations from this result set:

There certainly seem to be MORE movies with mid-level violent content but low-levels of everything else, than for sex/nudity (199 vs. 57). According to the original totals, there are actually more movies with 4-5 values for sex (794), than violence (757), but the disproportionate results in favor of violence once we look for lower values in other content categories seem to indicate that movies with sexual content also tend to have a fair amount of other stuff included as well, while violent movies are more likely to be ‘stand-alone’.
The sexual content curve is clearly centered on PG-13 (as is the profanity curve), while the 4/5 violent movies are clearly centered around the PG rating, with a handful of G movies as well. This would seem to present evidence that ratings are generally lower for ‘equal’ levels of violent content than for sexual content.

What about high levels of sex/violence that still avoided R ratings?

For PG-13 movies, there are:

68 films with Sex = 6
20 with Sex = 7
None with Values 8 or higher

For PG-13 movies with violence, there are:

166 films with Violence = 6
86 films with Violence = 7
8 films with Violence = 8
1 film with Violence = 9 (“1492: Conquest of Paradise” from 1992)

Again, for completeness, here are the PG-13 movies with profanity:

34 films with Profanity = 6
1 film with Profanity = 7 (What’s the Worst That Could Happen from 2001)
None with Profanity 8 or higher

This provides additional evidence that the ratings board has traditionally found higher levels of violence more acceptable than higher levels of sexual content, especially for non-R ratings. It appears that the criticism of the US ratings board (and US culture in general) is correct: violence is tolerated to a greater extent than sex and nudity is.

Well, maybe…

The problem here is we don’t know if we’re comparing apples with apples. The content values from 0 to 10 are completely arbitrary and relative only to themselves. The only thing we know about a movie with a violence value of “5” is that it is more violent than a movie with a value of “4”. Is a “5” in sexual content directly comparable to a “5” in violent content?

From the result set, there were 11 G-rated movies that were given a value of 4 or 5 for violence, but no G-rated movies for comparative values of sex or profanity. Here are those 11 movies:

Anastasia (1997)
Arctic Tale (2007)
Chicken Little (2005)
Chicken Run (2000)
Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius (2001)
Monsters Inc. (2001)
102 Dalmatians (2000)
Pokemon the First Movie (1999)
The Rugrats Movie (1998)
Tarzan (1999)
Babe: Pig in the City (1998)

For those who have seen one or more of these movies, the question is whether you considered any of these at the time to be “surprisingly violent”, given what you would expect for a G rating.

Now, compare that list to the list of movies that have been given values of 4 or 5 in the Sex/Nudity category and see if you consider the violent content of the first list to be “equivalent” to the sexual content of films in the second, which include “Ace Ventura: Pet Detective” and “Austin Powers” among others.

Looking through the specific descriptions of violent content in the G-rated movies above, we can see that ‘violence’ is a fairly broad category which includes car crashes, explosions, people falling from heights onto the ground, and scary looking aliens or monsters—things that are categorically different than human bloodshed. Is that directly comparable to sexual dialogue and images?

At higher levels, “violence” contains some pretty sick stuff—no question. But at lower levels, though, it’s hard to make a case that what’s included in the violence category can objectively be considered to be as “offensive” as the relatively equivalent content in the sex/profanity areas with equal values. If PSV material has some sort of psychological effect (which, again, we can’t prove, but we’re still just assuming to be the case, for now) it may be quite likely that the impact of violence doesn’t increase in a straight line, but rather in a curve that only starts arcing up dramatically at higher values.

Perhaps violence has to be MORE violent than its P and S brethren in order to for psychological effects to be seen. If so, then we may have a legitimate reason why “violence” can be treated more lightly than sexual material, particularly at lower levels, without contradiction—not because violence is ‘better’, but because the definition of ‘violence’ is so broad it includes a large number of things which are not, morally speaking, offensive.

Back to the original question: *should* either sex or violent content in movies be judged more or less harshly than the other? Is the ‘right’ way to judge content the US way, with violence being judged more tolerably than sex, or the European way which reverses it.

In real life, of course, sex is preferable to violence any time. (Obviously, you’d rather hear the news that your teenage daughter was found having sex with a strange man, than was found murdered in an alley by a strange man.)

In movies, of course, the violence and sex are fake (although nudity is still nudity), so the direct comparison to “real life” may not be that useful. Watching violent movies doesn’t actually kill anyone—the question is whether exposure to (fake, yet realistic) violent images make the viewer more violent in real life (or at least alters one’s opinion and attitude towards violence in real life), versus whether watching sexualized images alters one’s attitude towards sex and nudity in real life, along with their relationships with the opposite sex.

I don’t think anyone can make a definitive conclusion one way or the other which is “worse”. Violence is clearly individually worse, but violent acts are considerably rarer in real life, and the percentage of violent movie viewers who are led to real-life violence is undoubtedly very small.

On the other hand, sexual conduct considered ‘sinful’ by LDS standards is not rare at all, such that even if sexual activity is far better than violent activity in a vacuum, it is so much more common and widespread across society, that one can argue the net impact of changing sexual attitudes over the human population as a whole might be worse for society simply due to sheer volume. Viewers may be far more likely to be influenced by sexual content in small ways—viewing casual sexual encounters as ‘normal’ and ‘expected’ in their romantic relationships, for example—versus being drawn to commit violent crimes, even if the latter has higher consequences.

(Even from a secular standpoint, it is arguable that more of the primary causes of poverty today are "sex-related"--as in teen/unwed pregnancies, single parents, adultery & broken homes, etc...--rather than "violence-related", thus there is good reason for social conservatives to be concerned about sexual content in movies and the possible influence of sexual material in movies on viewers.)

Judging the proper balance between caring about sexual content versus violent content is an impossible question to answer: how do you appropriately compare the two together, anyway? How do you deal with the fact that "violence" seems to be a much broader category? If the US is, in fact, more tolerant of violence than sex, is that good or bad? Surely the best answer is to decouple the two categories together, rate them separately, and allow viewers to decide which one they care more about...

Next: "Ratings Creep" + the history of PG-13