I'm aware of how many wives Joseph Smith had - but I would point out that there is no evidence that any of those relationships were sexual in nature (other than with Emma), something given further support by the lack of children by any of these other wives. His primary purpose appears to have been building eternal ties. More information can be found here.
As JrnyFan said, there are definitely not 50,000 Mormon polygamists living anywhere. There are groups of people who claim to be Mormon, or Fundamentalist Mormon, but they are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
What I meant was ridiculous was the insinuation that Mormons still practice polygamy. You didn't say that, but it could be (and was) inferred from your comment.
I should congratulate you on your ability to be cryptic. The "secret of the bees"?
LDS was founded by polygamists, was friendly to polygamists for quite a while, and has never been successful in stamping out the practice. It is not the job of the LDS church to stamp out polygamy. It is the job of law enforcement. The LDS Church does not harbor polygamists, and any members found to be practicing polygamy are promptly excommunicated and turned over to law enforcement officials. The LDS Church has been fully successful in stamping out polygamy among its own members.
On the whole I agree with you, but this:
block polygamy but allow-- oh wait. utah is curious. is just plain ridiculous. Polygamy is not approved of by the LDS Church, and in any case, less than 50% of Utah is LDS (iirc). Polygamy is prohibited by Utah law, and any found to be practicing it are prosecuted (think Warren Jeffs). That HBO series "Big Love" was a complete fabrication in every way - there's no way a polygamist family living in Sandy could get away with it without being noticed - I lived there, I know.
Yes but they don't edit the product without consent from the owners of the IP. And even then it's for time allotment, commercial interruptions or intermissions. Actually when movies (at least the ones we're talking about) start on cable and network stations, they put a little disclaimer before it that says "this movie was edited for time and content." So no, it's not just for "time allotment, commercial interruptions or intermissions", it's for content as well.
And sure, I suppose they do have that right. But the sooner we ditch these archaic concepts ingrained in the major monotheistic religions the better off we will be. We'd be no better off than we are now. There are plenty of examples in history of countries that prohibit religion doing horrible things, just as there are plenty of examples in history of supposedly religious countries doing horrible things. I should note that these supposedly religious countries (at least the Christian ones) that did these horrible things (i.e. the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, etc) were not following the religion they profess to believe, so you can't rightly blame the religion itself. Correlation does not show causation. There are always people that take advantage of power, no matter how that power is obtained.
But that's my opinion. You're entitled to yours. I'm not trying to force my opinion on you, you shouldn't try to force yours on me. If I want to watch a movie without its sexual content, it does not affect you - you can still see it in its original form. I'm not trying to stop you from doing so, and I do not support others who would try to stop you.
Ah, but I do not propose that companies be allowed to edit a movie without permission. That is akin to piracy. Companies like Clean Flicks should be allowed to edit movies, assuming that they have obtained the permission of the movie studios that created those movies; whether that permission was obtained through purchasing a license or some other means is unimportant for the purposes of this discussion.
If movie studios are willing to let network and cable stations edit their movies for time and content, inserting commercial breaks to earn money, then they should be equally willing to let a company sell copies of those movies edited just for content. Instead of inserting commercials to earn the pay for their work they charge a small fee up-front. It's the same, really, if permission is obtained.
I agree... that's why I said (more than once) that companies wishing to edit movies should get a license of some sort to do so, just as network stations do.
Even if a sex scene with no dialog somehow adds to the plot of a movie, removing it certainly does not *reverse* the meaning of the movie, as people were doing with my post.
Deleting scenes that *you* don't like is dangerously close to declaring that they should not be available to *anyone* because it is our duty to save our fellow human beings from immoral temptation, then we can start burning books, then burning people... Ah, but I would not support such a course of action. And I do not think it "dangerously close" to forcing other people should not view them.
All I'm saying is that if a small portion of the population wishes to view a movie without a certain scene, that they be allowed to. I am certainly not suggesting that everyone else be forced to view the movie without those scenes.
Yes, there is a rating system. It has become more and more lenient over even just the last ten years - ten years ago a studio would have been hard pressed to get certain swear words into a PG-13 rated movie; five years ago, one instance of the f-word was "ok", and recently I've seen a PG-13 movie with several.
The ratings are no longer a reliable guide regarding a movie's content, but yes, you are correct in stating that if I do not want to see certain content I can avoid those movies altogether.
The bigger problem comes when I see a movie on TV, enjoy it, and do not realize what was edited out. I rent it, gather a group of friends to watch, and suddenly there's a sex scene or nudity or whatever that was not in the edited version. This has not happened to me personally, but there have been many times where I see a movie on TV and decide to rent it and watch it with my wife, but when I get to Blockbuster I see the rating and I am sorely disappointed.
Movies can be enjoyable without sex and nudity, even those that contain such when they were made. There are many great movies that I would undoubtedly buy if they were available without those scenes. Without fail, every edited movie I have seen has lost nothing from editing those types of scenes out. I've spoken with friends who have seen the non-edited versions and they generally agree with me.
Moreover, I've seen some non-edited movies and I have been disappointed at the way some movie makers include such scenes "just because they can" while doing nothing to forward the plot. As someone else pointed out, simply showing Neo and Trinity in bed together in some way, or even just showing them go to the bedroom, would be enough to convey the fact that they're having sex. It is not necessary to actually show them doing it.
Yeah, reversing the meaning of my sentence is real mature. Thanks./sarcasm
I'm not suggesting that editing a movie should change the meaning of a movie. Removing a sex scene that contributes nothing to the plot does not change the meaning of a movie.
Do you suggest that network television stop editing movies they broadcast as well? They have permission of the studios, you know.
Oh, wait, you don't care if children see sex scenes.
See, you probably get mad when religious people try to force their views on you. That's exactly what you are doing.
I didn't say anything about legislating what's clean and what's not - in fact I wouldn't approve of such legislation. I would only support legislation permitting edited movies for those who desire it - and then only if those doing the editing have the proper permission from the movie studio.
Utah is no more a "captive audience" than anyone else. Its population is less than 50% LDS, last I checked.
I would not approve of legislating whether movies can contain certain content - just as I do not approve of legislating that they cannot be watched a certain way (i.e. edited).
I do not approve of businesses improperly profiting off of what are effectively pirated copies of movies. My other posts on this topic have been sufficiently clear on this point.
It is not a bad idea for artistic expression, however; movie makers are free to make movies however they want. Your post seems to imply that if the editing of movies is permitted, that people in general would prefer the edited version - but if that is so, then why make movies with this content at all, and at least, why force them to view an unedited version if they are to see the movies? And if it is not so, then there would be no problem with permitting a minority of the population to see an edited movie.
Oh right, I remember now. You give the little ones a bible. Tell them that's all they ever need to know and then stick your head back up your own arse. So raising my kids to believe as I do is somehow ignorant? Let me guess, you're going to give your kids a Bible and the Communist Manifesto and some Scientology pamphlets and so on, so they can decide for themselves, right? No, you're going to raise your kids teaching them that religion is a wash and not worth their time, and likely you'll ridicule them if they look in to it on their own. Don't make the mistake of assuming that "belief in God" = "ignorant fool". I, on the other hand, will encourage my children to decide for themselves whether the religion I teach them is true, and if they decide it is not, I will not stop them, nor will I ridicule them. My sister went down that path, and I do not look down on her, though it saddens me.
Back on topic, I'm not proposing that we censor art. I'm proposing that if a certain demographic wants to remove certain things from movies, that they be allowed to. That's a far cry from censorship.
You know, to insist that people should encounter material they find objectionable is extremely inconsiderate of you. Should we, in our sex education classes in high schools, depict scenes of graphic sex? No, because it would add nothing to the educational value of the course. It is not necessary for me to view pornography to know I object to it. It is not necessary for me to drink alcohol to know that I don't want to drink it. It is not necessary to do or see or hear anything to know it is objectionable.
Yes, there is sex and violence in the Bible. It does not, however, depict detailed scenes of sex or gory violence. Movies are far more effective at conveying an image than a book is.
You see, there's a difference between you and I. You insist that a person should either see a movie exactly as its creators intended, or not at all. I claim that if I think a particular scene in a movie is not only objectionable but contributes absolutely nothing to the plot, that I should be allowed to view the movie without that scene. I wouldn't dream of forcing movie makers to only produce movies I personally find morally clean; they should be free to make whatever movie they want, and people should be free to watch a movie however they want. One of us wants to force our views on the other - and it's not the one of us that's religious. Isn't that odd...
Well see that's the point - they should be able to make that version, if they have the permission of the copyright owner.
If that's the issue (and I suspect it is) right now - that CleanFlicks or whoever didn't have permission - then that is the issue that should be corrected. Force CleanFlicks to license the material appropriately, rather than declare their business model illegal.
I've seen several DVD players at supermarkets that purport to automagically skip sex scenes and blank out swear words. Should these devices be outlawed as well? They are, after all, modifying the movie from what the original creators intended...
If you find the content morally objectionable, how is it more moral to buy an edited version from someone who has no right to sell it? You completely missed my point. I'm not saying CleanFlicks should be able to buy one copy of a DVD, edit it, and sell a thousand burned copies (in fact if you go back and read my first post you'll see I used that same example). I'm saying (and I said) there should be some companies that should be allowed, through a license or other agreement with the movie studio, to edit movies.
It's the same piracy-is-ok-no-it's-not argument as always, except in this case someone was editing the movie before reselling it. I'm not ok with that.
Copyright law does not have an exception to the "derivative works" clause that allows for such modifications. Explain to me, then, how network stations and cable stations manage to edit the movies they show. Different networks have different edits (meaning that networks are doing the editing themselves), and I really doubt they're doing it illegally.
What's so cool about halting clean dvd edits? Do you find it morally objectionable to remove morally objectionable content from movies?
For example, I like the Matrix trilogy, but there is a completely unnecessary sex scene in the second movie. Is it your intent to force all who would wish to watch the movie to view that scene? Even "fast forwarding" still gives you glimpses, interrupts the flow of the movie, and requires either good timing or a quick backtrack-rewind to resume the movie after the scene.
Many movies are like this. If I want to see a movie without what many consider objectionable material, why are movie studios fighting this? Wouldn't they be better off releasing a clean version of the movie themselves, and keep the profit? But since they refuse to do this, then I do not think that there is anything wrong with editing a movie to clean it up.
More to the point, networks and cable stations do this regularly to air movies on TV. Rather than prohibit *other* people from editing movies, movie studios should do what they do for networks - provide a license to edit the movie.
Prohibiting things like this does nothing but reduce movie studios' monetary gains. I, for one, won't see movies that have objectionable material unless I can either buy an edited version or see it on TV (where it is edited anyway).
I'm not saying that someone should be able to buy one copy of a DVD, edit it, and sell dozens or hundreds of burned copies. I propose that every edited copy be sold attached to an original - that way the studios get their sales money. The price could be somewhat higher than the price of the original alone, to compensate the editors for their work. Additionally, whoever does the editing should need a license (or some other form of permission) from the movie studio for each movie they edit.
Prohibiting the editing of movies altogether is not the answer.
Yes, machines get old, but let's face it, they're more capable than what we give them credit for. My old 386 machine with 1MB or so of RAM started Windows 3.1 in under 25 seconds. My core 2 duo laptop with 2GB of RAM starts XP pro... it's probably under 90 seconds, but I usually leave the room, and startup isn't finished when you log in - it still has to start all the stuff that idles in your notification area (i turn most of that off, but still).
Regarding eye candy... we've only just recently begun to see mainstream OSes that take advantage of a graphics card for the shell. We should have had UIs that take advantage of GPUs ten years ago, but instead, if I'm not mistaken, Windows XP's UI is all done in software. That's one reason, in my opinion, that Apple's UIs are snappier... they use the GPU to their advantage. And lest we think Vista is an improvement over XP, Vista's UI is slower on my laptop (GeForce 7300 Go) than XP's, even with most of the eye candy turned off... and whenever UAC pops up, instead of fading the background toward a translucent black, on my laptop I get a solid black flash followed by a complete screen refresh and *then* the translucent black. This is why I can't stand Vista... even the things that are *supposed* to work right don't work right.
I once read an article about a guy who charted all the function calls made by Gnome in a typical session. gettimeofday() was called hundreds of thousands times - I really doubt this serves a useful purpose. I would be comfortable guaranteeing the existence of similar stupidities in Windows' code base.
OS designers have become sloppy, as you pointed out, but that's just the problem - processors are so much faster than they used to be that collectively as programmers we have stopped caring about cycle counts... this is something that absolutely must be remedied if we are ever to obtain the dream of a quick and snappy user interface and sub-ten-second startup times.
And somewhat off-topic, the Windows install CDs really piss me off. Whenever I find the need to pop one in, the install CDs (both Vista and XP) load every single driver imaginable instead of, say, probing your hardware to see what is needed... not that it needs all of them immediately or even *ever*. What could be a thirty second process is transformed into a ten minute wait, even if all you want is to run the recovery console. Microsoft needs to get its act together and do what Linux boot CDs have been doing for years.
But you must admit that it is still up after going live on the front page of Slashdot. Up, but ridiculously slow. The first time I tried to load it, it didn't respond.
That's what shows like TMZ, Extra!, Insider, Access Hollywood, and so on are for.
CNN is about spewing the Democrats' "OMG IRAQIS ARE KILLING US HIDE!!!!!!11" crap. Their Entertainment news is mostly to add a break in between photos of random military things.... I feel like a traitor to mankind just for being able to list four celebrity "news" shows by name.
Actually some schools do provide Office (or parts of it) through MSDNAA (not mine, though). The particular programs offered through a school's MSDNAA account is dependent on the programs requested by the school MSDNAA account manager. I would guess that schools which sell MS Office in their bookstore do not, for obvious reasons, offer Office on MSDNAA.
Of course, by that logic they shouldn't offer XP/Vista on MSDNAA either, but then again, MSDNAA generally provides XP Pro and Vista Business, whereas school bookstores sell XP Home and Vista Home... just an idea. I'm basing it on my school, I suppose your collective experiences may vary.
I disagree. Study DOES bring about authority on scripture - just like in ANY other walk of life! Would you trust a preacher who didn't prepare messages, didn't dive into the word, didn't understand what he was talking about? Without study, we cannot "show ourselves approved," we cannot test doctrine and see if it holds up to God! It's WHY we were given scripture in the first place! I misspoke. My intention was to convey that scripture study alone does not give a person the authority to say "X is doctrine", regardless of how much he or she has studied. We should, of course, study the scriptures, as I elaborate on below.
I agree with the statement, if he WAS called, then about 2000 years of Biblical study essentially gets thrown out the window! Yep;)
And this is where I depart from LDS teachings - that it eliminates the necessity of studying and understanding scripture BEFORE coming to some sort of knowledge - particularly regarding Mormonism's historical and theological claims. True, the Holy Spirit does move beyond man's understanding, but faith DOESN'T have to proceed from blind trust! Ah, it appears I should not have left out steps for the sake of space (I should not assume that what is obvious to me is obvious to all). The LDS Church strongly encourages its members to study the scriptures daily; it is, in fact, a prerequisite to gaining a testimony of the Book of Mormon (or any doctrine). As the Book of Mormon's Introduction states it:
We invite all men everywhere to read the Book of Mormon, to ponder in their hearts the message it contains, and then to ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ if the book is true. Those who pursue this course and ask in faith will gain a testimony of its truth and divinity by the power of the Holy Ghost. (See Moroni 10: 3-5.) So you see, study is a requirement and prerequisite to gaining a testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I apologize for not being clearer about this before. You are correct in saying that faith should not (I would say true faith cannot) come from blind trust.
The teachings of Christ "seemed" completely new, but hatred of a brother was ALWAYS akin to murder, and lust was ALWAYS akin to adultery. He just spelled it out. The belief of the LDS Church is that Joseph Smith restored truths that were lost in the 2000 years since Christ was on the earth; that is, he took the sometimes unclear teachings in the Bible and made them starkly clear, through bringing to light more scripture and through active revelation from God. (More related to this below.)
It's not just mine - it's the scholarship of centuries of Biblical study by men more learned than any of us, regarding matters which had been reasoned and more or less figured out (to a point) which a singular, theologically and historically untrained individual suddenly claimed was mostly bunk and went in a completely new direction! I don't claim to have ironclad theology, but Smith introduced something which hadn't been done in two thousand years. Yet those same scholars don't agree most of the time on what many passages mean. For instance, the Athanasian Creed is a conglomeration of contradictory and mostly nonsensical "beliefs" - it was written by men who could not agree among themselves exactly what the nature of God was, so they compromised. That is what large groups of learned men give us - compromise. We should not base our beliefs on the compromises of groups of learned men. Simply studying a lot does not make a person an authority on scripture, nor does it give him the authority to declare what is doctrine and what is not. Only a prophet may do so, and none of these learned men were prophets.
Yes, Joseph Smith taught something that seemed completely new to everyone, but whether it seemed new to the people is hardly relevant. Whether scholars agree is also irrelevant; are scholars greater than God? What is relevant is whether or not he was called of God - for if he was, then everything he taught is true.
This is what the LDS Church teaches - that one should pray to know whether Joseph Smith was a prophet, and whether the Book of Mormon is true, and if a person ponders these things, and prays with a sincere heart, with real intent, that person will receive a witness of the Holy Ghost that these things are true. Once a person knows that these things are true, it follows that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the true church, and that by following its teachings and coming unto Christ a person may be forgiven of their sins and saved in the Kingdom of God.
If the Book of Mormon is of God, then Joseph Smith was a true prophet. If Joseph Smith was a true prophet, then the church he restored is the true church. It might be added: If the LDS Church is the true church, then Jesus Christ is the head of that church, and only by and through him, in His true church, can man be saved.
Brigham Young was, as far as I know, very careful to say "It is my understanding that...", or "I believe...", or something similar when he was speaking from his own interpretation of things rather than speaking as prophet.
Also, keep in mind that no prophet ever taught something radically new - even when Jesus expounded on the law, He clarified, and never added. No prophet taught something radically new? The entire Law of Moses was radically new, at least to the Jews in Egypt, so you're way off base there. Keep in mind that anyone who doesn't already know something of a concept will consider it radically new when it is taught to them. The teachings of Christ seemed completely new to many of the Jews - so much so that they killed him for "blasphemy". Jesus' explanations of scripture seemed just as implausible to the Jews as mine do to you.
and overall scripture interpretation (which I often find contradicts Mormon theology) You mean your interpretation of scripture contradicts LDS theology, right? You cannot fault a church simply for differing with your own interpretation. That's a very closed-minded position. I do not fault you for having a different interpretation of scripture, I fault you for insisting it is the only one possible.
I'm curious to know why you ignore things when I make good points rather than conceding that my position is, at the very least, plausible. Care to comment?
Regarding Brigham Young, the wikipedia article correctly refers to his beliefs regarding blacks as "his beliefs and unofficial comments". Why should a man be less entitled to personal opinion simply because he is a prophet or apostle? Moses did not suddenly become all-knowing when he was chosen as a prophet, and neither did Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or anyone else. They are entitled to their own opinions as much as anyone.
Abraham didn't marry Hagar (at least, it's not explicit in scripture), and the birth of Ishmael was the result of Sarah and Abraham's sin in not trusting God to provide what He promised - a child by Sarah. Re-read Genesis 16. And remember who the children of Ishmael became - Arabs and their kin. Not exactly a peaceful result.
You missed my point - God promised Hagar a great posterity. Why would he bless her for doing something that you say was a sin? That runs contrary to the nature of God.
As I said, the heresy of it isn't new or original...and your assertion that Paul and Peter believe it to be so comes from misinterpretation of scripture.
Ah, so now we're mostly debating interpretation of scriptures; I did not intend to convince you that "I am right and you are wrong", only that the LDS beliefs do have scriptural backing if you accept one interpretation of those scriptures. Arguing interpretation is unproductive; it seems that here too we will have to agree to disagree.
8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. 9 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.
There are two important things here of note. First, we believe that the Bible is not the only scripture that God has given man (he is the God of the entire world, after all, not just the God of the Jews). Second, we believe in modern revelation, and in modern prophets; as Amos said, God will do nothing without revealing what he is to do to his prophets. Therefore, if there are no prophets in our times, then God will do nothing in our times. At the same time, if there are no prophets, then either a) God has abandoned us, or b) we are too righteous to need prophets. Case b is quite unlikely considering the state of the world, and I don't like case a;)
What you should take from that is that we are not exclusively guided by God's word to a people that has been dead for 2000+ years, instead we are guided by God's word through his modern prophets as well.
Also, if you're going to debate scripture, use something that is non-Mormon.
So now the Bible is exclusively LDS? I believe all the scriptures I quoted were in the New Testament. If your quibble is with the fact that I use the LDS Church's online scriptures to reference things, then you have obviously failed to realize that the Old and New Testament we use is the standard King James Version, word for word (though we have added chapter summaries), which has been if not the most popular, then among the most popular English translations of the scriptures.
Try reading some non-LDS material and theology.
I have read quite a bit of literature coming from non-LDS sources; I happen to disagree with much of it. Don't make the mistake of thinking that if I believe one thing, I must be completely ignoring all other possibilities (that's simply not true).
Recall that the LDS Church teaches, as James (among others) taught we can, that we must pray and ask God if what we learn is true. I have done so, and have received a testi
If that's the case, how do you explain Young's position? He adamantly proposed what I was talking about.
Perhaps he was mistaken? No one ever said prophets were perfect. In any case, please provide references that have Brigham Young teaching what you say he taught, since you are saying he taught it.
I may have to dig some into this, but everything I can tell from the Bible is that plural marriage was NEVER endorsed by God. Allowed, yes, endorsed, no. No Biblical character ever had good consequences come about because of plural marriage.
It appears you are unfamiliar with the story of how Abraham had his son Ishmael, in which the Lord promises Hagar an exceeding multitude of posterity. If that's not endorsement, I don't know what is.
IANAE (I Am Not An Egyptologist), but hieroglyphs are pictures. Not to discount the difficulty, but I imagine when faced with concentrating on their meaning, I could probably get it. Have you ever asked, "how did he get ANY of it wrong if he was divinely inspired?"
See, you ignored what I said. In any case, you cannot prove that modern egyptologists themselves are correct (since they don't even know what all the various meanings the symbols can take on are).
Charlatan!=laziness. He was a failed treasure hunter.
But he never had a goal to get treasure. He was constantly giving away his own money to his followers. He never was wealthy by any definition of the word. I read up a bit more on this "treasure hunter" accusation:
There is some evidence that [Joseph Smith's] father was involved in treasure hunting, a common activity among poor New England farmers who hoped through the use of magic to discover buried money, and it was necessary for Joseph to extricate himself from the mistaken notions of that superstition... In November 1825, Joseph and his father worked briefly with a man named Josiah Stowell of South Bainbridge (Afton), New York, who believed a Spanish treasure was located in Harmony, Pennsylvania, near the Susquehanna River. The project failed, and the Smiths gradually separated themselves from the money-digging activities of their neighbors
Calling him a "failed treasure hunter" hardly reflects the actual situation.
Ummm...that man could be as God is the first heresy.
Is it? Then why did early Christians contemporary with Peter and Paul believe it to be so, as Father Vajda's research showed?
Eastern Orthodox writer Dr. Seth Farber ("The Reign of Augustine," The Christian Activist: A Journal of Orthodox Opinion, Vol. 13, Winter/Spring 1999, pp. 40-45,56) notes that the Orthodox church believes this as well.
This page is a good in-depth examination of this belief.
Try reading the first few chapters of Genesis - it was the lie that Satan told Adam and Eve. That man could "be like God" as it were, is no original idea and can easily be derived by mis-reading scripture (as was do
Slashdot Mirror
I'm aware of how many wives Joseph Smith had - but I would point out that there is no evidence that any of those relationships were sexual in nature (other than with Emma), something given further support by the lack of children by any of these other wives. His primary purpose appears to have been building eternal ties. More information can be found here.
As JrnyFan said, there are definitely not 50,000 Mormon polygamists living anywhere. There are groups of people who claim to be Mormon, or Fundamentalist Mormon, but they are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
What I meant was ridiculous was the insinuation that Mormons still practice polygamy. You didn't say that, but it could be (and was) inferred from your comment.
But that's my opinion. You're entitled to yours. I'm not trying to force my opinion on you, you shouldn't try to force yours on me. If I want to watch a movie without its sexual content, it does not affect you - you can still see it in its original form. I'm not trying to stop you from doing so, and I do not support others who would try to stop you.
Ah, but I do not propose that companies be allowed to edit a movie without permission. That is akin to piracy. Companies like Clean Flicks should be allowed to edit movies, assuming that they have obtained the permission of the movie studios that created those movies; whether that permission was obtained through purchasing a license or some other means is unimportant for the purposes of this discussion.
If movie studios are willing to let network and cable stations edit their movies for time and content, inserting commercial breaks to earn money, then they should be equally willing to let a company sell copies of those movies edited just for content. Instead of inserting commercials to earn the pay for their work they charge a small fee up-front. It's the same, really, if permission is obtained.
I agree... that's why I said (more than once) that companies wishing to edit movies should get a license of some sort to do so, just as network stations do.
Even if a sex scene with no dialog somehow adds to the plot of a movie, removing it certainly does not *reverse* the meaning of the movie, as people were doing with my post.
All I'm saying is that if a small portion of the population wishes to view a movie without a certain scene, that they be allowed to. I am certainly not suggesting that everyone else be forced to view the movie without those scenes.
Yes, there is a rating system. It has become more and more lenient over even just the last ten years - ten years ago a studio would have been hard pressed to get certain swear words into a PG-13 rated movie; five years ago, one instance of the f-word was "ok", and recently I've seen a PG-13 movie with several.
The ratings are no longer a reliable guide regarding a movie's content, but yes, you are correct in stating that if I do not want to see certain content I can avoid those movies altogether.
The bigger problem comes when I see a movie on TV, enjoy it, and do not realize what was edited out. I rent it, gather a group of friends to watch, and suddenly there's a sex scene or nudity or whatever that was not in the edited version. This has not happened to me personally, but there have been many times where I see a movie on TV and decide to rent it and watch it with my wife, but when I get to Blockbuster I see the rating and I am sorely disappointed.
Movies can be enjoyable without sex and nudity, even those that contain such when they were made. There are many great movies that I would undoubtedly buy if they were available without those scenes. Without fail, every edited movie I have seen has lost nothing from editing those types of scenes out. I've spoken with friends who have seen the non-edited versions and they generally agree with me.
Moreover, I've seen some non-edited movies and I have been disappointed at the way some movie makers include such scenes "just because they can" while doing nothing to forward the plot. As someone else pointed out, simply showing Neo and Trinity in bed together in some way, or even just showing them go to the bedroom, would be enough to convey the fact that they're having sex. It is not necessary to actually show them doing it.
As I pointed out to Gordonjcp just a moment ago, I do not suggest changing the meaning of movies.
I do not approve of misquoting people.
I suggest instead that removing scenes that are both unnecessary and add nothing to the plot is not wrong.
Reversing the meaning of a sentence is very different from what I suggest is reasonable, and I do not approve.
I suspect that if I were to misquote you in such a way, you would disapprove.
Don't be ridiculous.
Yeah, reversing the meaning of my sentence is real mature. Thanks. /sarcasm
I'm not suggesting that editing a movie should change the meaning of a movie. Removing a sex scene that contributes nothing to the plot does not change the meaning of a movie.
Do you suggest that network television stop editing movies they broadcast as well? They have permission of the studios, you know.
Oh, wait, you don't care if children see sex scenes.
See, you probably get mad when religious people try to force their views on you. That's exactly what you are doing.
You, sir, are an idiot.
I didn't say anything about legislating what's clean and what's not - in fact I wouldn't approve of such legislation. I would only support legislation permitting edited movies for those who desire it - and then only if those doing the editing have the proper permission from the movie studio.
Utah is no more a "captive audience" than anyone else. Its population is less than 50% LDS, last I checked.
I would not approve of legislating whether movies can contain certain content - just as I do not approve of legislating that they cannot be watched a certain way (i.e. edited).
I do not approve of businesses improperly profiting off of what are effectively pirated copies of movies. My other posts on this topic have been sufficiently clear on this point.
It is not a bad idea for artistic expression, however; movie makers are free to make movies however they want. Your post seems to imply that if the editing of movies is permitted, that people in general would prefer the edited version - but if that is so, then why make movies with this content at all, and at least, why force them to view an unedited version if they are to see the movies? And if it is not so, then there would be no problem with permitting a minority of the population to see an edited movie.
Back on topic, I'm not proposing that we censor art. I'm proposing that if a certain demographic wants to remove certain things from movies, that they be allowed to. That's a far cry from censorship.
You know, to insist that people should encounter material they find objectionable is extremely inconsiderate of you. Should we, in our sex education classes in high schools, depict scenes of graphic sex? No, because it would add nothing to the educational value of the course. It is not necessary for me to view pornography to know I object to it. It is not necessary for me to drink alcohol to know that I don't want to drink it. It is not necessary to do or see or hear anything to know it is objectionable.
Yes, there is sex and violence in the Bible. It does not, however, depict detailed scenes of sex or gory violence. Movies are far more effective at conveying an image than a book is.
You see, there's a difference between you and I. You insist that a person should either see a movie exactly as its creators intended, or not at all. I claim that if I think a particular scene in a movie is not only objectionable but contributes absolutely nothing to the plot, that I should be allowed to view the movie without that scene. I wouldn't dream of forcing movie makers to only produce movies I personally find morally clean; they should be free to make whatever movie they want, and people should be free to watch a movie however they want. One of us wants to force our views on the other - and it's not the one of us that's religious. Isn't that odd...
Well see that's the point - they should be able to make that version, if they have the permission of the copyright owner.
If that's the issue (and I suspect it is) right now - that CleanFlicks or whoever didn't have permission - then that is the issue that should be corrected. Force CleanFlicks to license the material appropriately, rather than declare their business model illegal.
I've seen several DVD players at supermarkets that purport to automagically skip sex scenes and blank out swear words. Should these devices be outlawed as well? They are, after all, modifying the movie from what the original creators intended...
It's the same piracy-is-ok-no-it's-not argument as always, except in this case someone was editing the movie before reselling it. I'm not ok with that.
What's so cool about halting clean dvd edits? Do you find it morally objectionable to remove morally objectionable content from movies?
For example, I like the Matrix trilogy, but there is a completely unnecessary sex scene in the second movie. Is it your intent to force all who would wish to watch the movie to view that scene? Even "fast forwarding" still gives you glimpses, interrupts the flow of the movie, and requires either good timing or a quick backtrack-rewind to resume the movie after the scene.
Many movies are like this. If I want to see a movie without what many consider objectionable material, why are movie studios fighting this? Wouldn't they be better off releasing a clean version of the movie themselves, and keep the profit? But since they refuse to do this, then I do not think that there is anything wrong with editing a movie to clean it up.
More to the point, networks and cable stations do this regularly to air movies on TV. Rather than prohibit *other* people from editing movies, movie studios should do what they do for networks - provide a license to edit the movie.
Prohibiting things like this does nothing but reduce movie studios' monetary gains. I, for one, won't see movies that have objectionable material unless I can either buy an edited version or see it on TV (where it is edited anyway).
I'm not saying that someone should be able to buy one copy of a DVD, edit it, and sell dozens or hundreds of burned copies. I propose that every edited copy be sold attached to an original - that way the studios get their sales money. The price could be somewhat higher than the price of the original alone, to compensate the editors for their work. Additionally, whoever does the editing should need a license (or some other form of permission) from the movie studio for each movie they edit.
Prohibiting the editing of movies altogether is not the answer.
Yes, machines get old, but let's face it, they're more capable than what we give them credit for. My old 386 machine with 1MB or so of RAM started Windows 3.1 in under 25 seconds. My core 2 duo laptop with 2GB of RAM starts XP pro... it's probably under 90 seconds, but I usually leave the room, and startup isn't finished when you log in - it still has to start all the stuff that idles in your notification area (i turn most of that off, but still).
Regarding eye candy... we've only just recently begun to see mainstream OSes that take advantage of a graphics card for the shell. We should have had UIs that take advantage of GPUs ten years ago, but instead, if I'm not mistaken, Windows XP's UI is all done in software. That's one reason, in my opinion, that Apple's UIs are snappier... they use the GPU to their advantage. And lest we think Vista is an improvement over XP, Vista's UI is slower on my laptop (GeForce 7300 Go) than XP's, even with most of the eye candy turned off... and whenever UAC pops up, instead of fading the background toward a translucent black, on my laptop I get a solid black flash followed by a complete screen refresh and *then* the translucent black. This is why I can't stand Vista... even the things that are *supposed* to work right don't work right.
I once read an article about a guy who charted all the function calls made by Gnome in a typical session. gettimeofday() was called hundreds of thousands times - I really doubt this serves a useful purpose. I would be comfortable guaranteeing the existence of similar stupidities in Windows' code base.
OS designers have become sloppy, as you pointed out, but that's just the problem - processors are so much faster than they used to be that collectively as programmers we have stopped caring about cycle counts... this is something that absolutely must be remedied if we are ever to obtain the dream of a quick and snappy user interface and sub-ten-second startup times.
And somewhat off-topic, the Windows install CDs really piss me off. Whenever I find the need to pop one in, the install CDs (both Vista and XP) load every single driver imaginable instead of, say, probing your hardware to see what is needed... not that it needs all of them immediately or even *ever*. What could be a thirty second process is transformed into a ten minute wait, even if all you want is to run the recovery console. Microsoft needs to get its act together and do what Linux boot CDs have been doing for years.
That's what shows like TMZ, Extra!, Insider, Access Hollywood, and so on are for.
... I feel like a traitor to mankind just for being able to list four celebrity "news" shows by name.
CNN is about spewing the Democrats' "OMG IRAQIS ARE KILLING US HIDE!!!!!!11" crap. Their Entertainment news is mostly to add a break in between photos of random military things.
Actually some schools do provide Office (or parts of it) through MSDNAA (not mine, though). The particular programs offered through a school's MSDNAA account is dependent on the programs requested by the school MSDNAA account manager. I would guess that schools which sell MS Office in their bookstore do not, for obvious reasons, offer Office on MSDNAA.
Of course, by that logic they shouldn't offer XP/Vista on MSDNAA either, but then again, MSDNAA generally provides XP Pro and Vista Business, whereas school bookstores sell XP Home and Vista Home... just an idea. I'm basing it on my school, I suppose your collective experiences may vary.
Yes, Joseph Smith taught something that seemed completely new to everyone, but whether it seemed new to the people is hardly relevant. Whether scholars agree is also irrelevant; are scholars greater than God? What is relevant is whether or not he was called of God - for if he was, then everything he taught is true.
This is what the LDS Church teaches - that one should pray to know whether Joseph Smith was a prophet, and whether the Book of Mormon is true, and if a person ponders these things, and prays with a sincere heart, with real intent, that person will receive a witness of the Holy Ghost that these things are true. Once a person knows that these things are true, it follows that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the true church, and that by following its teachings and coming unto Christ a person may be forgiven of their sins and saved in the Kingdom of God.
If the Book of Mormon is of God, then Joseph Smith was a true prophet. If Joseph Smith was a true prophet, then the church he restored is the true church. It might be added: If the LDS Church is the true church, then Jesus Christ is the head of that church, and only by and through him, in His true church, can man be saved.
I'm curious to know why you ignore things when I make good points rather than conceding that my position is, at the very least, plausible. Care to comment?
Abraham didn't marry Hagar (at least, it's not explicit in scripture), and the birth of Ishmael was the result of Sarah and Abraham's sin in not trusting God to provide what He promised - a child by Sarah. Re-read Genesis 16. And remember who the children of Ishmael became - Arabs and their kin. Not exactly a peaceful result.
You missed my point - God promised Hagar a great posterity. Why would he bless her for doing something that you say was a sin? That runs contrary to the nature of God.
As I said, the heresy of it isn't new or original...and your assertion that Paul and Peter believe it to be so comes from misinterpretation of scripture.
Ah, so now we're mostly debating interpretation of scriptures; I did not intend to convince you that "I am right and you are wrong", only that the LDS beliefs do have scriptural backing if you accept one interpretation of those scriptures. Arguing interpretation is unproductive; it seems that here too we will have to agree to disagree.
In addition to that, I refer you to the eighth and ninth articles of faith of the LDS Church:
8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
9 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.
There are two important things here of note. First, we believe that the Bible is not the only scripture that God has given man (he is the God of the entire world, after all, not just the God of the Jews). Second, we believe in modern revelation, and in modern prophets; as Amos said, God will do nothing without revealing what he is to do to his prophets. Therefore, if there are no prophets in our times, then God will do nothing in our times. At the same time, if there are no prophets, then either a) God has abandoned us, or b) we are too righteous to need prophets. Case b is quite unlikely considering the state of the world, and I don't like case a ;)
What you should take from that is that we are not exclusively guided by God's word to a people that has been dead for 2000+ years, instead we are guided by God's word through his modern prophets as well.
Also, if you're going to debate scripture, use something that is non-Mormon.
So now the Bible is exclusively LDS? I believe all the scriptures I quoted were in the New Testament. If your quibble is with the fact that I use the LDS Church's online scriptures to reference things, then you have obviously failed to realize that the Old and New Testament we use is the standard King James Version, word for word (though we have added chapter summaries), which has been if not the most popular, then among the most popular English translations of the scriptures.
Try reading some non-LDS material and theology.
I have read quite a bit of literature coming from non-LDS sources; I happen to disagree with much of it. Don't make the mistake of thinking that if I believe one thing, I must be completely ignoring all other possibilities (that's simply not true).
Recall that the LDS Church teaches, as James (among others) taught we can, that we must pray and ask God if what we learn is true. I have done so, and have received a testi
If that's the case, how do you explain Young's position? He adamantly proposed what I was talking about.
Perhaps he was mistaken? No one ever said prophets were perfect. In any case, please provide references that have Brigham Young teaching what you say he taught, since you are saying he taught it.
I may have to dig some into this, but everything I can tell from the Bible is that plural marriage was NEVER endorsed by God. Allowed, yes, endorsed, no. No Biblical character ever had good consequences come about because of plural marriage.
It appears you are unfamiliar with the story of how Abraham had his son Ishmael, in which the Lord promises Hagar an exceeding multitude of posterity. If that's not endorsement, I don't know what is.
IANAE (I Am Not An Egyptologist), but hieroglyphs are pictures. Not to discount the difficulty, but I imagine when faced with concentrating on their meaning, I could probably get it. Have you ever asked, "how did he get ANY of it wrong if he was divinely inspired?"
See, you ignored what I said. In any case, you cannot prove that modern egyptologists themselves are correct (since they don't even know what all the various meanings the symbols can take on are).
Charlatan!=laziness. He was a failed treasure hunter.
But he never had a goal to get treasure. He was constantly giving away his own money to his followers. He never was wealthy by any definition of the word. I read up a bit more on this "treasure hunter" accusation:
There is some evidence that [Joseph Smith's] father was involved in treasure hunting, a common activity among poor New England farmers who hoped through the use of magic to discover buried money, and it was necessary for Joseph to extricate himself from the mistaken notions of that superstition... In November 1825, Joseph and his father worked briefly with a man named Josiah Stowell of South Bainbridge (Afton), New York, who believed a Spanish treasure was located in Harmony, Pennsylvania, near the Susquehanna River. The project failed, and the Smiths gradually separated themselves from the money-digging activities of their neighbors
Calling him a "failed treasure hunter" hardly reflects the actual situation.
Ummm...that man could be as God is the first heresy.
Is it? Then why did early Christians contemporary with Peter and Paul believe it to be so, as Father Vajda's research showed?
Eastern Orthodox writer Dr. Seth Farber ("The Reign of Augustine," The Christian Activist: A Journal of Orthodox Opinion, Vol. 13, Winter/Spring 1999, pp. 40-45,56) notes that the Orthodox church believes this as well.
This page is a good in-depth examination of this belief.
Try reading the first few chapters of Genesis - it was the lie that Satan told Adam and Eve. That man could "be like God" as it were, is no original idea and can easily be derived by mis-reading scripture (as was do