Spiritual free-fall

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Jan. 17, 2013 10:39 a.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" again with the lies. Please state the date, time, and article where J Thompson, Mike Richards, or I have advocated banning all abortions. You cannot do that because we have never advocated banning all abortions. You, have advocated for allowing women to have abortions on demand, which is against LDS teachings.

    You have constantly advocated policies and laws that force people to chose what your and your ilk deem is right. You oppose allowing people to decide for themselves how they will live their lives, and deny people the opportunity to succeed or fail on their own merits.

    You support socialism, which destroys the agency of man, and has been denounced by multiple prophets.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 17, 2013 10:08 a.m.

    J Thompson

    I don't think that you can substantiate your claim that I, or Mike Richards or Redshirt or anyone else that you mock has ever called for the "banning" of anything.


    OK - I'll try it again.
    The DN montior keeps censoring my "thoughtful" comment.

    I'd like to select one, abortion.

    You all want to "ban" abortions, all of them.
    With No exceptions.
    Just like the GOP party platform.

    Meanwhile -
    The LDS church - OUR church - has gone on record....

    Allowing for them [i.e., NOT banning them outright as you so desire.] is certain situations.

    1. Rape and Incest.
    2. Life and Health of the Woman.
    3. Viablity of the Fetus.
    4. The decision to made by the woman, her Doctor, her family and/or her clergy.
    5. The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals...concerning abortion.

    I support the LDS Churches stance on this matter 100%
    You and your political party - by making NO exceptions - do not.

    You are Forcing everyone to Choose the Right [in YOUR opinion], Always. Even if it kills you.

    No-Choices = No-consequences = No-destination.

    That's why I oppose you.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Jan. 17, 2013 9:42 a.m.


    It's not just curious but somewhat offensive when you tell you that you are doing the Lord's work by defending negative choices. It is also offensive when you tell us that some of us want to "ban" anything that you advocate.

    I don't think that you can substantiate your claim that I, or Mike Richards or Redshirt or anyone else that you mock has ever called for the "banning" of anything.

    Asking people to be wise in their actions is not "banning" improper or imprudent actions.

    Reminding people that there are consequences to seeing things that might trigger lust or violence is not "banning" a movie, book or TV show.

    Christ did not offer choices. He told us that the way was straight and the gate was narrow that leads us back to him. Was he "banning" agency when he told us that?

    Christ told us to guard our thoughts. He told us to choose carefully.

    You tell us the opposite.

    Some movies tell us the opposite.

    Some books tell us the opposite.

    Some TV shows tell us the opposite.

    Make your case, but don't twist and turn our words.

    Choices = consequences = destination.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Jan. 17, 2013 9:38 a.m.

    To "Twin Lights" when I was a missionary I wouldn't care about the presentation. I would be happy to just get the cake. I used to care about being delicate at handling your ilk, but have decided that it is ineffective.

    To "Curmudgeon" you said that "Actually, Hollywood's appetite is for money, and they produce what sells." If Hollywood's appetite was for money, they would be producing G and PG rated movies.

    Now you are putting words in my mouth. The issue remains that G and PG movies are the most profitable. The ratings do not "diversify" their products. Movie studios have 2 products. Movies and spin-off merchendise.

    I never said that Hollywood isn't interested in profits. I stated that profits are not their prime motivation. There are other motives out there behind their movies.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Jan. 17, 2013 8:56 a.m.

    Christian 24-7 you obviously didn't read the study. F for you. Do your homework.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Jan. 16, 2013 9:31 p.m.


    No, it doesn’t hurt my feelings. Since you have not addressed that phrase to me (at least not recently) it was not my feelings I was talking about. I had no reference to the issue in question so I am unconcerned about if you backed up your statement or not.

    My one and only point was that you have some good opinions – some that I agree with. But you are so prickly in the way you express yourself that you are driving folks away from even considering your opinions.

    My “ilk”? Again, kind of offensive and there was no need to be.

    The truth is certainly important. But if no one will consider it because of the way it is presented, then you are not advancing your cause.

    Sort of like the old missionary lesson where the missionaries are asked if they want cake. They say yes. One gets a well served piece on a nice plate. The other gets a mess of cake. The point being presentation matters even with the Gospel.

    Again, my question is do you want an argument or to advance understanding?

  • GK Willington Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 6:33 p.m.

    in regards to Irony guy... 1) It was Tipper Gore who started PMRC back in the day. 2) Ted Nugent is now quite the conservative spokesperson but have you paid attention to his lyrics?

    at J Thompson

    "TV and movies tell us that it is perfectly fine to use force to get our way."

    Like a Clint Eastwood movie?

  • Hank Pym SLC, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 6:14 p.m.

    I've always wondered what it'd be like to be like Rowdy Roddy Piper in "They Live"; Thanks to JCS that curiosity has been quelled.

    @ Mike Richards 10:41 a.m. Jan. 16

    "We become what we participate in. No one is immune."

    Curious; 1) What exactly did you participate in to make you the life of the party?? 2) How did/do you feel about I Dream of Jeannie?

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 6:14 p.m.


    If violence is decreasing then we should be perfectly safe owning whatever guns we want.

    But no one must believe that study because there are so many trying to get guns so they can be safe and the rest are trying to take all the guns away so they can be safe.

    I am sure there are big bucks behind that research which came from the Hollywood and the gaming industry to show what they wanted.

    As for some who suggest that we look at our own habits, I decided a long time ago that if my child was uncomfortable watching it, or playing it, or if I was uncomfortable having them see me watching it, I wouldn't watch or play. I have seem very few movies the last 20 years. I have definitely done what I can with my dollars to support only entertainment that is moral.

    I practice moral choices myself, I have taught them to my kids, so to help more I must speak out in the community. I do not force, but I will speak out, with my free speech. We need to stop feeding our baser instincts, and reinforce the good.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Jan. 16, 2013 5:36 p.m.

    Mike asks.."Why are we here? Are we just some "accident"? Are we nothing more than a bunch of cells that combined?" Pretty much yes..more complicated than that but pretty much that's the answer. And..most of the people I know who adhere to that belief are far more moral, humane, and kind, than those who I encounter who believe they fulfill some grand purpose. When this is all you have you treat it well.

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 5:26 p.m.

    "The statement was made by "Curmudgeon" that Hollywood makes more R rated movies because they are more profitable to hollywood."

    I never made such a statement. You lose crebility by claiming I did. Go reread my first comment.

    Further, you obviously don't know much about how businesses operate. Any business that has multiple products will have one that produces greater profits than the others. That does not mean that the company abandons all its other products and only produces the one with the largest profit margin. Take pharmaceuticals for example. Or cars. Or guns. Or you name it. The same goes for the movie industry. They produce G-, PG-, PG-13, and R-rated movies to appeal to the largest possible audience, to stay diversified, and to increase overall revenue and profits.

    Honestly, your implication that Hollywood is not interested in profits because it doesn't exclusively produce highly profitable G-rated movies is nonsense. Do a google search. I found a list of the 15 most profitable movies by ROI. There were 6 R-rated, 3 PG-13-rated, and 6 PG rated. None was G-rated.

  • WestGranger West Valley City, Utah
    Jan. 16, 2013 5:16 p.m.

    The smut and violence attracts impressionable youth. It is a form of exploitation. The key to the problem are parents who don't provide enough moral or ethical guidance to their children. We meed to pay more attention to what kids are doing. "No success in life can compensate for failure in the home". David O. McKay.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Jan. 16, 2013 4:10 p.m.

    We don't have much evidence of video games or movies as a direct cause of violence but I'm sure it has some impact. I myself avoid them unless they have a very accurate historical significance and accuracy. No zombie or slashers for me or my house.

    The fact is we are getting LESS violent as a society while we have MORE violent movies. There could very well be a substitution effect happening according to a Berkeley study titled "Does Movie Violence Increase Violent Crime?"

    The study actually shows that when there is a violent movie showing violence decreases. And we know from Steven Pinker's research that violence is decreasing long term. Google that title and you'll find the Berkeley study. It's simply too much to put in here.

    Now wouldn't a scientific, fact based discussion be nice?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 4:02 p.m.

    To "Open Minded Mormon" once again, I will prove you wrong.

    The anti-Nazi propaganda movies that Hollywood put out in the early 1940's were unprofitable.

    See "Movies see gaff of hard year: Anti-NAZI films Unprofitable to Studios" from the DN on January 1, 1941.

    The anti-nuclear movie "Until the End of the World" released in 1991 lost $38 million

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Jan. 16, 2013 4:00 p.m.

    One study. One study, conducted by a conservative advocacy group, came to the conclusion that G-rated movies were more profitable. However critics say:

    "The group's study is a switch in tactics. "Now they're trying to talk Hollywood's language, namely money," says Kevin Hago-pian, a lecturer in media studies at Pennsylvania State University in Philadelphia.

    But the study's claim that G-rated movies are more profitable than PG, PG-13, or R-rated movies may be inaccurate. "The clarity of profits in Hollywood is just as hard to define as the notion of a 'family film,' " he says, noting that studios use all sorts of complicated (some would say creative) accounting to determine profitability."
    (Christian Science Monitor "Why aren't there more G movies?")

    More research needed.

    Obviously there is money to be made from R-rated movies. Disney also re-releases older movies, adding to profit totals. When top grossing movies are evaluated, correcting for inflation, many/most are PG-13 rated.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 2:41 p.m.

    To "Twin Lights" how would you like me to tell you that you are wrong? Does it hurt your feelings when somebody says "you are wrong"? As you will note, I backed up my statement with easily verifiable evidence.

    The big question for you and your ilk is this. Why is it an issue to be told you are wrong when the truth confirms that you are wrong?

    I am not concerned about offending. I want to only the truth to be seen.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Jan. 16, 2013 2:39 p.m.

    J Thompson
    OMM/LDS Liberal,

    Yes - a little trick I learned from RedShirt/RedShirt 1701.
    I grew tired of his unfair 2 to 1 comments.

    Where did Mike Richards advocate "force".
    You both do daily.
    Your constantly banning of all things "evil" was precisely Lucifer's Plan - I'm against it.
    I'll take Freedom, and all the "vices' that go along with it.
    Hopefully, by leading by good example others will "desire" to choose the right.
    We both are trying for the same goals...
    I just agree with Christ's methods more than yours.



    Please name one Hollywood movie produced at a complete and utter loss purely for promoting an agenda?
    I'll even use someone obviously bent with an agenda, and even on my side:
    Michael Moore films are even made with making a profit in mind.

    Producers will never finance them if their is any percieved loss.

    It's ALL about money and Capitalism.

    FYI - Socialist government can actual ban sex and violence.
    Is that what you are advocating?

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Jan. 16, 2013 1:41 p.m.


    Sometimes you and I are on different sides and sometimes the same. However, it does you (or your points) no good to start off so many posts with "you are wrong".

    If you are seeking an argument, no problem (you will get one). If you are seeking to influence, then that is not generally the way to do it.

    It's not about being forthright. It's about talking to an audience and not having them close up the minute you start speaking.

    I am not trying to offend.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 1:35 p.m.

    To "Open Minded Mormon" what are you talking about? The statement was made by "Curmudgeon" that Hollywood makes more R rated movies because they are more profitable to hollywood. The facts are that R rated movies are not the most profitable. So, if Hollywood is not producing movies based on profit, what is their motive?

    Are many of their movies intended to legitimize their beliefs by making them seem "normal"? Are their many of their movies intended to be propaganda to steer the nation to their desired goal?

    The question isn't about box-office profitability, but overall profitability.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Jan. 16, 2013 1:26 p.m.

    "Much of society is in a spiritual free-fall, and Hollywood's insatiable appetite for smut and violence is a major contributor."

    It seems to me that it is the general public that has the "insatiable appetite for smut and violence". Hollywood is just feeding that appetitie. How many commenters who have blamed Hollywood have watched any TV program or movie with either of thses elements in the past year?

    Instead of pointing the finger at Hollywood for simply meeting a demand, how about if we all start looking at ourselves.

    Against my better judgement I'm going with my man Michaeal Jackon on this one. "I'm starting with the man in the mirror. I'm asking him to change his ways. And no message could have been any clearer. If you wanna make the world a better place take a look at yourself and then make a change."

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 1:19 p.m.

    OMM/LDS Liberal,

    Where did Mike Richards advocate "force". He reminded us that we become what we participate in. Is "participating" in watching a movie or a TV show "force"? Why did you twist what he said to mean something other than what he wrote? Does that serve your purpose? Isn't that exactly what those movies and TV shows are doing, twisting something good and trying to make it look old fashioned or passe?

    Virtue is good. TV and movies long ago told us that we were prudes to believe that sex should be reserved for marriage.

    Violence is evil. TV and movies tell us that it is perfectly fine to use force to get our way. (You even twisted Mike's words to imply that he suggested using force.)

    Agency requires that each of us receive back the consequences of our actions. Participating in movies or TV or any other activity that excites the animal within is wrong. You are the only poster who used the word "force".

    I applaud Mike for speaking out against giving in to appetites and passions. I wonder why you find that "forcing" anyone.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Jan. 16, 2013 1:06 p.m.

    FYI - Christ was a passavist.
    Care to explain how a disiple or follower of Christ can be pro-gun?

    Yet here we see it -
    The Anti-War, Anti-Gun, Anti-Violent, passavist, Bleeding Heart Liberals are somehow being blamed

    by the Pro-Gun, Pro-War, Pro-Military, Pro-Business Conservatives?

    And RedShirt --
    They won't make films if they don't make money.
    You're the pure Capitalist...you should understand supply / demand economics.
    yours is the motto: Keep Government out of it - Let the Free Markets decide.

    And G-rateed movies don't make more money at the box-office.
    It's compounded by all the toys, action figures and DVDs sold after the fact.
    You hawk-eye business sense is slipping.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 12:43 p.m.

    To "Curmudgeon" you are wrong. If Hollywood was after profits, they would be making G-Rated movies. See "Study: G-rated movies most profitable" at NBC News.

    To "Happy Valley Heretic" you are wrong. What Hollywood puts out does effect how people act. See "Literature Review of Media Messages to Adolescent Females" from University of Saskatchewan and "The Influence of Media Marketing on Adolescent Girls" from Kappa Omicron Nu.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Jan. 16, 2013 12:34 p.m.

    Ironically, it's we liberals who have been campaigning against a violent society and violent media fare all along. Somebody's confused if they think otherwise.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 12:08 p.m.

    It will be very interesting when folks who try to force their opinions and beliefs on others suddenly realize that their ride on the Great Celestial Elevator is going down instead of up.

    Funny thing is that they'll probably be heading the same direction as those who actions they decry now.

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 11:56 a.m.

    Maybe we should take a page from the book of liberal policy ideas.

    Tax violence and sex in all forms of entertainment, to pay for the pregnancies and victims of violence and rape, and for the mental health treatment of perps and victims.

    We should limit all video games to 10 shots then the round is over. Limit movies to 10 shots too.

    We should do background checks and ban private sales of all violent and sexual entertainment.

    We should restrict any guns being used that look like military style guns in any form of media.

    We have to protect people from becoming cold killers, and their potential victims.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 11:29 a.m.

    "Those who claim that this issue is simply a matter of choice should tell that to the parents of innocent schoolchildren who have been massacred by purveyors of violent entertainment. What choice did those children have?"

    Those kids were murdered by guns, not DVD cases.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Jan. 16, 2013 11:08 a.m.

    Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    What's your answer then Bro. Richards?

    From your comments, it's "Forced Righteousness".
    Taking away all Free Agency, banning eveything except assualt weapons, so that no one is ever lost.

    Try choosing a better way,
    setting a good example,
    stop judging others,
    and Follow Christ.

    BTW - Alma taught a great example of Free Agency vs. Forced Righteousness.

    While watching woman and children being thrown into the fires,
    He said the wicked must be allowed to perform their wickedness.

    And as for weapons --
    Learn a lesson from the Anti-Nephi-Lehis [Ammonites]
    they buried them deep in the ground, and willing laid done and were slaughtered.

    By so doing, they not only obeyed God - but in fact, their example turned many MANY more of the Lamanites to righteousness than all the teaching and preaching ever had.

    And in the end, the once righteous Nehpites who swore to live by their swords, ultimelty all perished by them as well.
    Just as God - the Savior of the world - said.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 16, 2013 10:41 a.m.

    Yes, there is an empty classroom where children were slaughtered by a madman who may have been influenced by TV and movies. But, have we stopped to think about the 1,600,000 classrooms that were never filled because of abortions in the United States since Roe v Wade?

    What societal influences led to those abortions? Just last night my wife and I watched a DVD of The Bob Newhart show. Something as benign as that TV show was filled with talk about the dentist and the receptionist having sex with anyone and everyone. A generation of youth watched that show and many other shows like it. Some of them believed that they were entitled to have sex whenever and with whomever. How many of them had an abortion to "correct" their mistake? How many classrooms are empty because those babies were destroyed in the womb?

    Yes, there is cause and effect. We will never know in this lifetime how many lives were destroyed because people were indoctrinated by TV and movies without believing that they were susceptible to the underlying messages.

    We become what we participate in. No one is immune.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Jan. 16, 2013 10:35 a.m.

    "Wreck it Ralph" was great.
    so was "The Hobbit"
    even James Bond's "SkyFall" was cleaner than any Bond movie I've EVER since - even those done back in 1964.
    We got "The Averngers" on Blu-ray for Christmas.
    We took our family to see "Gnomeo and Juliet" for FHE.

    The most "violent" movie I saw this past year was "Saints and Soldiers: Airborne Creed", and it was about good Latter-Day Saints put in the worst this world has to offer.

    What do you mean smut, sex, and violence with NO moral values?

    It's all in the eye of the beholder.

    BTW - I know many of you believe everyone on the left is a commie Socialist,
    but this is America - You vote with your wallet.
    Supply equals demand.
    If you don't like it, drop Capitalism and switch over to Socialism.
    Socialist countries don't allow the smut and violence you complain about.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Jan. 16, 2013 10:24 a.m.

    Does the phrase, "ripe for destruction" mean anything?

  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 10:07 a.m.

    Those who claim that this issue is simply a matter of choice should tell that to the parents of innocent schoolchildren who have been massacred by purveyors of violent entertainment. What choice did those children have?

    This is not a mere matter of personal choice. Study after study, including those cited by this paper, have proven that watching either violent or sexually deviant movies causes viewers to become desensitized, and eventually imitate what they see. How dare anyone claim that a few hours of watching these filthy movies is worth the life of even one child.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 9:55 a.m.

    Comments like this always amaze me. Society is improving. Django is a fictional movie about slavery. Just 150 years ago, this sort of thing wasn't fictional. As a society, we've improved by leaps and bounds. Ancient Romans fed actual humans to lions for entertainment.
    Ghangis Khan and Atila the Hun committed many atrocities. Christians went on crusades to "convert" Muslims but murdered thousand and even resorted to cannibalism.
    The Old Testament if full of stories of incest, murder and slavery and it was all acceptable.
    Our current society is far better than humans have ever been. It's called progress.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 16, 2013 9:55 a.m.

    Why are we here? Are we just some "accident"? Are we nothing more than a bunch of cells that combined?

    What about "opposition in all things"? Where does that come in? What about agency to choose which of the two opposites we want in our lives?

    Where do we find those opposites? What is shown on TV and in movies is largely opposite to what is taught in our churches. Which do we choose?

    We have to make a choice. As they say, nature abhors a vacuum. In this case, that "vacuum" is the idea that we can sit on the fence and watch.

    We become who and what we desire to become. If we fill our lives with filth, we will be filthy (even if we insist that there is no filth in movies or on TV). If we fill our lives with charity, love and compassion, we will be nearer to the person that Christ challenged us to become.

    We can sit in the dark and watch sex, vulgarity and violence or we can sit in the light and learn about faith, hope and charity.

    The choice is ours.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Jan. 16, 2013 9:31 a.m.

    There have been some great movies recently produced by Hollywood---Les Miserables and Lincoln for example. And there are numerous other examples.

    Don't care for Tarantino? Don't go see his movies.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 9:00 a.m.

    Hollywood is not the tail wagging the dog. People everywhere need to turn off the tv, talk radio, and even church so they can grab a brain think for themselves. We consume this stuff, movie producers don't stuff it down our throats. It isn't a spiritual free fall. It's a societal loss of people willing to be adults and think for themselves. And the worst thing is that these people aren't just going to make bad movie choices.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Jan. 16, 2013 8:36 a.m.


    Thankfully this is a free country. You have the right to go to, or not go to any movie you choose.

    I am also thankful that you do not get to censor any movie that you find "immoral".

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 8:20 a.m.

    John Charity Spring said:
    No doubt, there will be several comments from liberal posters indicating that they are unchanged by watching unrestrained violence and sexuality in one movie after another. This simply proves my point about just how much of the general public has fallen for Hollywood's propaganda.

    Says a guy who has fallen head over heals for religious propaganda over reason and logic, and boasts of it daily.

  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 7:15 a.m.

    This letter is absolutely correct that modern Hollywood has become a cesspool of violence and immorality. However, the letter is wrong in its inference that Hollywood has become this way on accident.

    Tarantino and the other left-wing producers are filling their movies with wanton sexuality and violence precisely because they do want the viewers to be changed by what they see. Modern Hollywood has an open and stated agenda of destroying traditional marriage and family. Indoctrinating the ignorant masses with the belief that violence and sexuality are purely recreational activities goes a long way towards furthering this agenda.

    No doubt, there will be several comments from liberal posters indicating that they are unchanged by watching unrestrained violence and sexuality in one movie after another. This simply proves my point about just how much of the general public has fallen for Hollywood's propaganda.

  • Crusader Layton, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 6:26 a.m.

    Thankfully we are all free to choose what we watch and many of us do not think that our version of spirituality is right for everyone.

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 6:19 a.m.

    "Hollywood's insatiable appetite for smut and violence is a major contributor."

    Actually, Hollywood's appetite is for money, and they produce what sells. The appetite for smut and violence lies in the hearts of the consumers (natural man, if you will).

    Sure there is evil in the world. But there is also good. You have your agency. You can choose not to watch Django or other violent or salacious movies. You can choose to limit your TV viewing to PBS. Man up and CTR.