DiscussMormonism.com

I'm not supposed to be posting... dammit!

Anyway, I'm just a little sad that I felt so much shame (back in the day) for watching "Pretty Woman" but never, ever felt a bit of shame for watching countless acts of violence in movies. The one that comes to mind for some reason, is the episode of Knight Rider when he gets so totally beat up until he is bloody and unconscious. I have seen so many limbs chopped, heads lopped, swords stuck through torsos, and on and on.

I'm okay with the church giving is rules to adhere to. But why skip ones that seem more important?

Should Thomas S. Monson consider writing a couple more Sections in the D&C? Maybe an addendum that addresses our consumption of violence in media?

I know, I know. They warn us against depictions of violence in GC and the Ensign, etc. But what about scripture? Why not get serious about it?

I know, right?

Probably because Tommy "Let's All Have Some Pie" Monson is a PUSSY, like Mormon Jesus.

Why do you section 139 to read " Thus sayeth the Lord, unto the children of Israel, thou shalt not watch violence."

Maybe rather than say fornication is next to murder, they could say it is next to punching someone, on the sin scale?

quark wrote:I'm not supposed to be posting... dammit!

Anyway, I'm just a little sad that I felt so much shame (back in the day) for watching "Pretty Woman" but never, ever felt a bit of shame for watching countless acts of violence in movies. The one that comes to mind for some reason, is the episode of Knight Rider when he gets so totally beat up until he is bloody and unconscious. I have seen so many limbs chopped, heads lopped, swords stuck through torsos, and on and on.

I'm okay with the church giving is rules to adhere to. But why skip ones that seem more important?

Should Thomas S. Monson consider writing a couple more Sections in the D&C? Maybe an addendum that addresses our consumption of violence in media?

I know, I know. They warn us against depictions of violence in GC and the Ensign, etc. But what about scripture? Why not get serious about it?

Because in Mormonism, anything that causes a boner is bad, unless it is JSJr's boner.

sock puppet wrote:Because in Mormonism, anything that causes a boner is bad...

Erotic dreams? I was told these are approved. You get a free pass on these.

quark wrote:

sock puppet wrote:Because in Mormonism, anything that causes a boner is bad...

Erotic dreams? I was told these are approved. You get a free pass on these.

That's true dependant on what you do when you wake up and there it is, looking up at you like an overexcited puppy desperate to be petted...

It bugs me too. I think it's more of an American thing than a strictly Mormon thing. The MPAA is not a Mormon organization and they are far more strict about sex and nudity than they are about violence. TV is the same. A few years ago they showed Schindlers List on network television, I think it was ABC, commercial free and unedited. Even though they claimed it was unedited, they blurred out the naked parts but left in all the horrific and sadistic violence. We recently watched the John Adams mini-series. There is a scene where a Boston mob tars and feathers a British official. It is a disturbing scene, but what was most shocking was they stripped him down completely naked and they showed his junk for about 2 seconds causing a gasp in my household. I wonder why a man's natural naked body is more shocking than the same man being tarred and feathered. There are countless more examples. It's an American thing but the church has taken this contradiction to the extreme.

As an active Mormon this is one of the things that really disturbs me about my culture. A while back, a couple of years ago or so, Desert Book undertook to purges its shelves of any book in which illicit sexual relations took place, which meant all of the classics went, but it wasn't only the classics. Richard Paul Evens, an LDS best selling author (national best seller also...he's the author of "The Christmas Box") who writes very sentimental fiction had a new book out, and in one scene a married counselor sits on a park bench with a single woman. The scene is completely asexual; not only does nothing sexual happen between these two, nothing is implied. But still Deseret Book banned it.

Well, a month or so later I had occasion to go to the Deseret Book website and saw pitched there a new video about an RM who was training to become a cage fighter. This was around the time John McCain characterized cage fighting as "human cockfighting" and it was banned in about a third of the states. But here was an RM training to be a cage fighter, and Deseret Book pitched him big time: not only was he an RM, but "married and a counselor in his ward bishopric!" the cover of the box said.

As a one-time owner of a chain of video stores, I can tell you that LDS, while they will not tolerate any sex or nudity--or language, they will not tolerate bad language either--have no problem with extreme violence. This is very strange to me...I don't get it.