Does it have to be that way with our Media Choices?

For those of us that have an interest in Scottish culture etc the release of the TV Series OUTLANDER recently has been a boon.... Well maybe.

On the surface it is very interesting and appears authentic.  A little to authentic in some respects if you believe life was hard and full of  marauding soldiers that have their way with people back in the 1700's.

Here is a sample of some of the questionably family friendly content as described found on the IMDB.COM site..


A woman rips her dress open, full nudity

A man puts his hand up a woman's dress and she starts moaning. No nudity but the scene lasts for quite a while

A woman tries to have sex with a married man, she is wearing a very revealing dress, they start kissing but he tells her to stop

several attempts to rape, nudity involved.

A man is seen with a gunshot wound which is then taken care of by a nurse.

Several men are attacked by a boar. They have graphic wounds in their legs. One man's intestines are exposed.

A little boy has a nail hammered through his ear as a form of punishment. He screams in pain, and blood pours out of his wound.

A man tries to rape a woman in episode one, he lifts her skirts up to expose her bottom but he is interrupted

The same man tries to rape a woman in a later episode, he bends her over the table and lifts her skirts, rips open her dress to reveal her breasts but he is interrupted

A man and woman have sex in a field, a woman's dress has been ripped open to reveal her breasts. They are interrupted by some soldiers, one tries to rape the woman but nothing is seen and he is stopped.

In episode 12, one attempted rape scene goes on for a while. In the prolonged scene the man exposes his genitals while we watch him rub them but being unable to become erect to rape the woman he is with. He beats her several times before she blacks out, it is unclear what occurred afterwards.

In episode 14, two women talk while one of them squeezes the breast-milk out of each one of her nipples into a cup. This goes on for a couple of minutes.

A group of travelers comes across two bodies hanging from crosses. The men have been crucified and otherwise abused. Close-ups of the bodies are shown and the victims have been dead for about a week.

Various scenes in which severely wounded men are being treated, which display a high level of anxiety and urge combined with screaming or moaning and images of blood gushing.


This is just a sampling of the various types of content.  The area they list are Gore & Violence, Sex & Nudity,  Frightening/Intense Scenes, Alcohol/Drugs/Smoking, and Profanity.  They have listings for each one.... The Sex section is more then a screen full at regular font size.

So the question is this  - Do we really have to have all this profanity, sensual material etc in our programs?  Could they not have made the same program and not included the majority of this material?  Is there a way to make a TV series for example that is still basically historically accurate without having to throw in so much sex, violence and the like?

I once was watching a documentary on the making of the God Father Movie.  At one point Francis Coppella said there was rumors that a violence director would be brought in to make the movie more violent etc.  Kind of scary thinking of why do they need to add that stuff in..... many times it does not help the movie one bit.

That becomes the challenge.  How do those of us that still have morals or want to have morals push for more quality programming. I'd love some good Scottish culture programming, that is not necessarily documentary and potentially dull.  I'd also like to have said program(s) not be full of rape scenes.

We gave away our copy of the Rob Roy movie featuring Liam Neeson.  Over all the movie was good.  The story very authentic, well paced, written and acted.  However, one part that lasts for say 2 minutes in the movie made us give it up.... the Raping of the wife by Cunningham.  You might know what I'm talking about if you've seen the movie.  If you haven't your missing nothing.   We'll take our Disney version any day since it is clean.  Slightly different focus, style, and the like but, good no the less.




Another case in point.  We watch LADYKILLERS featuring Tom Hanks the other night.  Good overall remake and in some respects better especially if you could remove all the language.
 
So that is the challenge.... finding a way to get good entertaining material while still keeping our morals, and minds clean from the filth that is present in so much programming.

I guess one of the few ways to know if you should even be watching something is this -   If you would not watch it with your kids present should you be watching it at all. 
The US has a rating system though as most of you have found out - PG-13 does not always means your kids should be watching it...... the lines are so grey these days it is hard to tell just from the rating.  Some other countries have rating but, they too are equally vague and not really helpful.

mpaa.org

Highest grossing films by Rating - PG-13 does best - https://stephenfollows.com/which-mpaa-rating-earns-the-most-money/

A few sites have been developed over the last few years in regards to rating media content in a different way beyond the normal rating system.

One such site is OK.com   uses an age rating 6+ or say 17+ as the minimum age that should be watching this material.  Seems to be a popular way of doing things in other countries for ratings.

Kids in mind is another - 

 They don't put an overall rating on a movie or program.  They rank the areas of concern - profanity, nudity, violence etc.  That way you can find out if a movie is high for say profanity but, very low for everything else.

ASSIGNED NUMBERS
Unlike the MPAA we do not assign one inscrutable rating based on age, but 3 objective ratings for SEX/NUDITY, VIOLENCE/GORE and PROFANITY on a scale of 0 to 10, from lowest to highest, depending on quantity and context. - Kids-in-mind.com


The LadyKillers tends to be off the chart for profanity but, in the middle for the other factors.
Had I known that I'm not sure I would have even watch any of it.

The problem is some rate just movies, or just TV.  There is not a one stop shop for everything.... though I guess it never will be since you'd need one that cover all the countries of the world.




I'd like to put some well known Scottish culture films or programs and a cleaner alternative


Rob Roy  (Liam Neeson) - Rob Roy, The Highland Rogue (by Disney), Count of Monte Cristo

Brave Heart (Mel Gibson) - Can not figure out a good substitute.

Outlander (Starz Series) -  Kidnapped, Poldark(PBS)

Honorable Mention(s) - The Mission, Lord of the Ring Series, Robin Hood Prince of Thieves, The Eagle, Willow
(some of these may be borderline for Violence etc) 

Again some styles of films and topics  are very hard to tone down the action, etc.  What you have to look for are the ones that might have a bit of fighting, though exclude unnecessary language or sex.




Buaidh - NO - Bas

The following is a repost. I take no credit for writing any of this material. To view the original post please click here The Divine Institution of Marriage

The Divine Institution of Marriage

Introduction 
In 1995, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints published “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” which declares the following truths about marriage:

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. . . .

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.[1]

Since the publication of that statement, there have been many challenges to the institution of marriage. Prominent among these challenges has been the recognition by several national governments and some states and provinces that same-sex marriage—formal unions between two individuals of the same gender—are the equivalent of traditional marriage. Yet God’s purposes for establishing marriage have not changed. One purpose of this document is to reaffirm the Church’s declaration that marriage is the lawful union of a man and a woman.
Another purpose is to reaffirm that the Church has a single, undeviating standard of sexual morality: intimate relations are acceptable to God only between a husband and a wife who are united in the bonds of matrimony.
A third purpose is to set forth the Church’s reasons for defending marriage between a man and a woman as an issue of moral imperative. The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage derives from its doctrine and teachings, as well as from its concern about the consequences of same-sex marriage on religious freedom, society, families, and children.
A fourth purpose of this document is to reaffirm that Church members should address the issue of same-sex marriage with respect and civility and should treat all people with love and humanity.
The Vital Importance of Marriage
Marriage is sacred and was ordained of God from before the foundation of the world. Jesus Christ affirmed the divine origins of marriage: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?”[2]
From the beginning, the sacred nature of marriage was closely linked to the power of procreation. After creating Adam and Eve, God commanded them to “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,”[3] and they brought forth children, forming the first family. Only a man and a woman together have the natural biological capacity to conceive children. This power of procreation—to create life and bring God’s spirit children into the world—is divinely given. Misuse of this power undermines the institution of the family.[4]
For millennia, strong families have served as the fundamental institution for transmitting to future generations the moral strengths, traditions, and values that sustain civilization. In 1948, the world’s nations issued the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, affirming that “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society.”[5]
Marriage is far more than a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage is a vital institution for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults. Throughout the ages, governments of all types have recognized marriage as essential in preserving social stability and perpetuating life. Regardless of whether marriages were performed as a religious rite or a civil ceremony, in almost every culture marriage has been protected and endorsed by governments primarily to preserve and foster the institution most central to rearing children and teaching them the moral values that undergird civilization.
It is true that some couples who marry will not have children, either by choice or because of infertility. The special status granted marriage is nevertheless closely linked to the inherent powers and responsibilities of procreation and to the innate differences between the genders. By contrast, same-sex marriage is an institution no longer linked to gender—to the biological realities and complementary natures of male and female. Its effect is to decouple marriage from its central role in creating life, nurturing time-honored values, and fostering family bonds across generations.
In recent decades, high rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births have resulted in an exceptionally large number of single parents. Many of these single parents have raised exemplary children. Extensive studies have shown, however, that a husband and wife who are united in a loving, committed marriage generally provide the ideal environment for protecting, nurturing, and raising children.[6] This is in part because of the differing qualities and strengths that husbands and wives bring to the task by virtue of their gender. As an eminent academic on family life has written:

The burden of social science evidence supports the idea that gender differentiated parenting is important for human development and that the contribution of fathers to child rearing is unique and irreplaceable. . . . The complementarity of male and female parenting styles is striking and of enormous importance to a child’s overall development.[7]

In view of the close links that have long existed between marriage, procreation, gender, and parenting, same-sex marriage cannot be regarded simply as the granting of a new “right.” It is a far-reaching redefinition of the very nature of marriage itself. It marks a fundamental change in the institution of marriage in ways that are contrary to God’s purposes for His children and detrimental to the long-term interests of society.
Threats to Marriage and Family
Our modern era has seen traditional marriage and family—defined as a husband and wife with children in an intact marriage—come increasingly under assault, with deleterious consequences. In 2012, 40% of all births in the United States were to unwed mothers.[8] More than 50% of births to mothers under age 30 were out of wedlock. Further, the marriage rate has been declining since the 1980s. These trends do not bode well for the development of the rising generation.
A wide range of social ills has contributed to this weakening of marriage and family. These include divorce, cohabitation, non-marital childbearing, pornography, the erosion of fidelity in marriage, abortion, the strains of unemployment and poverty, and many other social phenomena. The Church has a long history of speaking out on these issues and seeking to minister to our members with regard to them. The focus of this document on same-sex marriage is not intended to minimize these long-standing issues.
More recently, the movement to promote same-sex marriage as an inherent or constitutional right has gained notable ground in recent years. Court rulings, legislative actions, and referenda have legalized same-sex marriage in a number of nations, states, and jurisdictions. In response, societal and religious leaders of many persuasions and faiths have made the case that redefining marriage in this way will further weaken the institution over time, resulting in negative consequences for both adults and children.[9]
A large number of people around the world recognize the crucial role that traditional marriage has played and must continue to play if children and families are to be protected and moral values propagated. Because the issue of same-sex marriage strikes at the very heart of the family and has the potential for great impact upon the welfare of children, the Church unequivocally affirms that marriage should remain the lawful union of a man and a woman.
Unchanging Standards of Morality
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that God has established clear standards of morality for His children, who are accountable before Him for their behavior. Such standards cannot be changed by the reasoning, emotions, personal interests, or opinions of mortal beings.[10] Without the higher authority of God, as revealed in scripture and by His prophets, secular society will flounder and drift.
Many advocates of same-sex marriage argue that traditional standards of sexual morality have changed and that “tolerance” requires that these new standards be recognized and codified in law. If tolerance is defined as showing kindness for others and respect for differing viewpoints, it is an important value in all democratic societies. But as Elder Dallin H. Oaks has observed, “Tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination.”[11]
The Savior taught that we should love the sinner without condoning the sin. In the case of the woman taken in adultery, He treated her kindly but exhorted her to “sin no more.”[12] His example manifested the highest love possible.
In addition to using the argument of tolerance to advocate redefining marriage, proponents have advanced the argument of “equality before the law.” No mortal law, however, can override or nullify the moral standards established by God. Nor can the laws of men change the natural, innate differences between the genders or deny the close biological and social link between procreation and marriage.
How Would Same-Sex Marriage Affect Religious Freedom?
As governments have legalized same-sex marriage as a civil right, they have also enforced a wide variety of other policies to ensure there is no discrimination against same-sex couples. These policies have placed serious burdens on individual conscience and on religious organizations.[13]
Same-sex marriage and anti-discrimination laws have already spawned legal collisions with the rights of free speech and of action based on religious beliefs. For example, advocates and government officials in certain states have challenged the long-held right of religious adoption agencies to follow their religious beliefs and place children only in homes with both a mother and a father. As a result, Catholic Charities in several states was forced to give up its adoption services rather than be forced to place children with same-sex couples.[14]
In the United States, the First Amendment right of free exercise of religion is coming under pressure from proponents of same-sex marriage. Some of these proponents advocate that tax exemptions and benefits should be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not accept such marriages.[15] The First Amendment may protect clergy from being forced to perform same-sex marriages, but other people of faith have faced and likely will continue to face legal pressures and sanctions. The same will happen with religiously affiliated institutions and educational systems. For example, a Georgia counselor contracted by the Centers for Disease Control was fired after an investigation into her decision to refer someone in a same-sex relationship to another counselor. In New Jersey, a ministry lost its tax-exempt status for denying a lesbian couple the use of its pavilion for their wedding. New Mexico’s Human Rights Commission prosecuted a commercial photographer for refusing to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony. When public schools in Massachusetts began teaching students about same-sex civil marriage, a Court of Appeals ruled that parents had no right to exempt their students.^[16]
Similar limitations on religious freedom have already become the social and legal reality in several European nations, and the European Parliament has recommended that laws protecting the status of same-sex couples be made uniform across the European Union.[17] Where same-sex marriage becomes a recognized civil right, it inevitably conflicts with the rights of believers, and religious freedom is diminished.
How Would Same-Sex Marriage Affect Society?
The possible diminishing of religious freedom is not the only societal implication of legalizing same-sex marriage. Perhaps the most common argument that proponents of same-sex marriage make is that it is essentially harmless and will not affect the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage in any way. “It won’t affect your marriage, so why should you care?” is the common refrain. While it may be true that allowing same-sex marriage will not immediately and directly affect existing marriages, the real question is how it will affect society as a whole over time, including the rising generation and future generations.
In addition to undermining and diluting the sacred nature of marriage, legalizing same-sex marriage brings many practical implications in the sphere of public policy that will be of concern to parents and society.[18] When a government legalizes same-sex marriage as a civil right, it will almost certainly enforce a wide variety of other policies to enforce this. The implications of these policies are critical to understanding the seriousness of condoning same-sex marriage.
The all-important question of public policy must be: what environment is best for the child and for the rising generation? While some same-sex couples will obtain guardianship over children, traditional marriage provides the most solid and well-established social identity for children.[19] It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation. By contrast, the legal recognition of same-sex marriage may, over time, erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children. No dialogue on this issue can be complete without taking into account the long-term consequences for children.
As one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably entail changes in school curricula. When the state says that same-sex marriages are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, public school administrators will feel obligated to support this claim.[20] This has already happened in many jurisdictions, where from elementary school through high school, children are taught that marriage can be defined as a legal union between two adults of any gender, that the definition of family is fluid, and in some cases that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral.[21] In addition, in many areas, schools are not required to notify parents of this curriculum or to give families the opportunity to opt out.[22] These developments are already causing clashes between the agenda of secular school systems and the right of parents to teach their children deeply held standards of morality.
Throughout history, the family has served as an essential bulwark of individual liberty. The walls of a home provide a defense against detrimental social influences and the sometimes overreaching powers of government. In the absence of abuse or neglect, government does not have the right to intervene in the rearing and moral education of children in the home. Strong, independent families are vital for political and religious freedom.
Civility and Kindness
The Church acknowledges that same-sex marriage and the issues surrounding it can be divisive and hurtful. As Church members strive to protect marriage between a man and a woman, they should show respect, civility, and kindness toward others who have different points of view.
The Church has advocated for legal protection for same-sex couples regarding “hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.”[23] In Salt Lake City, for example, the Church supported ordinances to protect gay residents from discrimination in housing and employment.[24]
The Church’s affirmation of marriage as being between a man and a woman “neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians.”[25] Church members are to treat all people with love and humanity. They may express genuine love and kindness toward a gay or lesbian family member, friend, or other person without condoning any redefinition of marriage.
Conclusion
Strong, stable families, headed by a father and mother, are the anchor of society. When marriage is undermined by gender confusion and by distortions of its God-given meaning, the rising generation of children and youth will find it increasingly difficult to develop their natural identities as men or women. Some will find it more difficult to engage in wholesome courtships, form stable marriages, and raise another generation imbued with moral strength and purpose.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, along with many other churches, organizations, and individuals, will continue to defend the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, because it is a compelling moral issue of profound importance to our religion and to the future of society.
The final words in the Church’s proclamation on the family are an admonition to the world from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles: “We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.”[26]
This document is a revised and updated version of “The Divine Institution of Marriage,” first published by the Church in 2008 (.pdf file).
References

---

[1] “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” Ensign, Nov. 1995, 102.

[2] Matthew 19:4–5.

[3] Genesis 1:28.

[4] See M. Russell Ballard, “What Matters Most Is What Lasts Longest,” Ensign, Nov. 2005, 41–44.

[5] United Nations, “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III), Dec. 10, 1948.

[6] David Blankenhorn, Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem (New York: Basic Books, 1995); Maggie Gallagher and Joshua K. Baker, “Do Moms and Dads Matter? Evidence from the Social Sciences on Family Structure and the Best Interests of the Child,” Margins Law Journal 4:161 (2004); Mark Regnerus, “How Different Are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study,” Social Science Research 41:4 (July 2012): 752–70; Regnerus, “Parental Same-Sex Relationships, Family Instability, and Subsequent Life Outcomes for Adult Children: Answering the Critics of the New Family Structures Study with Additional Analyses,” Social Science Research 41:6 (Nov. 2012): 1367–77; W. B. Wilcox, J. R. Anderson, W. Doherty, et al., Why Marriage Matters, Third Edition: Thirty Conclusions from the Social Sciences (New York: Institute for American Values and National Marriage Project, 2011); M. E. Scott, L. F. DeRose, L. H. Lippman, and E. Cook, Two, One, or No Parents? Children’s Living Arrangements and Educational Outcomes around the World (Washington, D.C.: Child Trends, 2013; worldfamilymap.org/2013/articles/essay/two-one-or-no-parents); Andrew J. Cherlin, The Marriage-Go-Round: The State of Marriage and the Family in America Today (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2009).

[7] David Popenoe, Life Without Father (New York: The Free Press, 1996), 146.

[8] See J. A. Martin, B. E. Hamilton, M. J. K. Osterman, et al. Births: Final Data for 2012. National Vital Statistics Reports; vol. 62, no. 9 (Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, 2013).

[9] See Sherif Girgis, “Check Your Blind Spot: What Is Marriage?” Marriage, Feb. 15, 2013; thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/02/7942/; Lynn Wardle, “The Attack on Marriage as the Union of a Man and a Woman,” North Dakota Law Review, vol. 83 (June 2008): 1364–92; David Blankenhorn, The Future of Marriage (2007); Lynn Wardle, ed., What’s the Harm? Does Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Really Harm Individuals, Families, or Society? (2008); R.R. Reno, “The Future of Marriage,” First Things, Jan. 2013, 3–4; Richard Neuhaus, “Disingenuousness and Clarity,” On the Square, May 30, 2008; firstthings.com/onthesquare/2008/05/disingenuousness-and-clarity.

[10] See Dallin H. Oaks, “No Other Gods,” Ensign, Nov. 2013, 72–75.

[11] Dallin H. Oaks, “Weightier Matters,” Ensign, Jan. 2001, 17.

[12] John 8:11.

[13] See Douglas Laycock, Anthony R. Picarello Jr., and Robin F. Wilson, eds., Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty, Emerging Conflicts (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield, 2008).

[14] See usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/fortnight-for-freedom/upload/Catholic-Adoption-Services.pdf

[15] See Jonathan Turley, “An Unholy Union: Same-Sex Marriage and the Use of Governmental Programs to Penalize Religious Groups with Unpopular Practices,” in Laycock, Picarello, and Wilson, eds., Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts, 59–76.

[16] Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George, What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense (New York and London: Encounter Books, 2012), 62–64.

[17] See Roger Trigg, Equality, Freedom, and Religion (London and New York: Oxford University Press, 2012); The Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe, Report 2012 (Vienna, Austria, 2013); “European Parliament Resolution on Homophobia in Europe,” adopted Jan. 18, 2006.

[18] See Girgis, Anderson, and George, What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense.

[19] See endnote 6.

[20] Charles Russo, “Same-Sex Marriage and Public School Curricula: Preserving Parental Rights to Direct the Education of Their Children,” University of Dayton Law Review, vol. 32 (Spring 2007): 361–84.

[21] Gerry Shih, “Clashes Pit Parents vs. Gay-Friendly Curriculums in Schools,” The New York Times, Mar. 3, 2011, page A21A; John Smoot, “Children Need Our Marriage Tradition,” Public Discourse, June 13, 2013; thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/06/10344/; Challenging Homophobia and Heterosexism: A K-12 Curriculum Resource Guide, Toronto District School Board (2011).

[22] Parker v. Hurley, 514 F. 3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008); Fields v. Palmdale School District, 427 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 2005).

[23] mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-to-same-sex-marriage-votes.

[24] See mormonnewsroom.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/statement-given-to-salt-lake-city-council-on-nondiscrimination-ordinances.

[25] mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-to-same-sex-marriage-votes.

[26] “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” 102.

The Line between Public and Private

I would like to discuss the line between public and private.
What sparked this interest are two recent events that make you wonder where does the line get drawn on your public and private life.

The first is the total infusion of the racist comments secretly recorded of Donald Sterling - owner of the Clippers basketball team. (still as of 05/12/2014).  And the second is the ousting of the CEO of Mozilla due to a $1000 donation to the Prop 8 (California Marriage intuitive) several years ago.


Any smart person knows that what they do and say in private could and likely will be used against you in the future if you have some sort of more public profile.  That being - if you are in upper management of an organization, are in entertainment in anyway etc you have a public profile.
Those that are just one of 30k employees for a large company need not worry as much.


So what makes these situations a bit disturbing?   The fact that something that should be private has turned into something that is public.  Take the Mozilla case for a moment.  What does a $1000 donation to a political cause have to do with anything?  Would it have mattered if he had given the money to elect a green party candidate?  How about to a political party - Communist of America, or the US NAZI party or the Democrats.  It really would not.  It would be a bit disturbing, but, is not a person allowed the ability to express themselves?  The more disturbing is that because it was in support of a cause that got labeled as anti-gay he got hit.  He donated to a hot button issue.

"The forces of intolerance won. With Eich caving in, there is no conversation, and the world is not a better place for the free exchange of ideas. " Mozilla CEO Eich caves over Prop. 8 donation

Again where does one's support of prop 8 have to do with his ability to run the company?
Maybe it does but, in the end talk is talk and actions are actions.  You need to judge the person more by the actions not just the talk.
It takes a pretty good charlatan to talk like a racist in private and be 100% non racist in public.
The Sterling case is classic in this regard.  He was discriminator long before these comments were leaked.  He'd been to court multiple times on just these issues.  But, that finally do something now years later.  Seems like they are a little late to the party, and may have gone overboard to make up for something that should have been done years ago.





Where should the line be drawn when it comes to conduct in private for a more or less public figure.

Have people become so intolerant of a person being able to express their views if they are against a hot button group that they in reality are being intolerant?
I definitely see a difference between someone donating to prop. 8 for example and them saying that anyone that is gay or gay leaning can not work at my company.  One is discrimination and the other is expressing a voice in the public square and going through legal channels to get things changed.
Also it seems that now in some cases you find a cloud of fear hanging over you.  Decide to support something deemed against our protected group(s) and you'll be run out of town.  So you don't express your opinion since you feel afraid to be harassed if someone decides to turn against you.  Not good.
You begin to cut out even the civilized discussion.  Why, fear that's why!

Many groups have been putting the fear factor into things for quite some time now.  They make themselves appear to be move then the 10% of the population that they are.  This in turn with the fact they are willing to fight in court helps them to get their way.  Those groups reluctant to go to court, and that do not have a lot of people in high profile professions don't seem to be much of a threat.

Take the Montgomery bus boycott as an example.  This worked as all non-violent protest should in the end due to what it caused.  They found an injustice and decided to show how much they as a group could effect the overall good.  They simply quit using the bus.  They company to gain back the ridership and fix things had to reevaluate their policy of who sits where in the bus.  They did not go around bad mouthing the drivers (they just doing their job) , or egging the buses or the like.  No they found alternate forms of transportation.  Then as the economics began to be felt the bus company, local government and the like had to come to the table to rectify the situation.

This is how things should be handled in cases like the basketball team owner that is racist.  Quit going and then as things do down the drain he will have to sell.  Who will hold on to a team that is losing a ton of money?
Works the same with any business.  Take the baker and photographer that decided they would not do business associated with a same-sex wedding.  The people that got rejected decided to do more then just take their business elsewhere and tell all their friends and like minded individuals to do the same.  No they had to go to court and claim discrimination.  Sadly, it was for what would have to be classified as religious discrimination.  They chose to not bake a cake or take pictures their religious belief do not support same sex marriage.  And sadly, the baker and photographer both lost.




This opens up another can of worms in my opinion.  The can that states - your religious beliefs don't matter if we decide they don't matter.   I guess someone could come and take someone to court if they decided to their business being closed on Sunday is discrimination.  Do I see a future law suite against Hobby Lobby on the horizon.  Some Atheist or agnostic decides he feels threatened, or discriminated against due to the fact they are closed on Sunday (day of the Lord ie. Sabbath) and since they don't believe in a supreme being.
Someone tried this against the Boy Scouts and it did not work in relation to the Pledge of Allegiance and Oath/Law.

Where do you draw the line?  When do your religious beliefs become discrimination?

Liberty versus liberty: religious freedom bills trouble gay rights supporters

At UVU, Elder Oaks sees hope despite 'alarming' religious liberty trends

"Elder Oaks maintained that freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion doubly protect religious liberty, but he said there are reasons to be concerned about the vitality of both.
"I fear that free speech is diminishing as a result of the chilling effect of mostly invisible restraints, even censorship."
He cited a number of examples but then added another, one "very personal to me," of the boycotts, firings and intimidation of those who backed Proposition 8 — defining marriage as between a man and a woman — in California. He mentioned the recent resignation of Mozilla's new CEO over a $1,000 donation he made to Proposition 8 six years ago.
Elder Oaks called it "another unfortunate example of bullying and intimidation that too often seeks to censor speech in the public square."

I think the Mozilla case show a bit of over reach.  The Donald Sterling case show a lack of action till it was past the time it would not cause other problems.


We really need to be careful when we go and take a person's personal at home talk and put it out in the the public arena.  We need to be careful that we don't take things out of context.  That we give the benefit of the doubt first and after we have good details then we take action.  That way we allow everyone to have their turn and so there can be a civilized discourse.

Once we throw out the ability to have a civilized conversation about Politics, Religion, racism, and the like we have lost a lot of what makes America great.  We have decided to let fear and extortion rule supreme.  And unfortunately that is what they use in dictatorships to keep themselves in power.






Buaidh - NO - Bas

Political Correctness?

I feel I have to define political correctness before we move along in this post.  This definition comes straight off a Google search.

po·lit·i·cal·ly cor·rect

pəˈlitik(ə)lē/

adjective

adjective: politically correct; adjective: politically incorrect; adjective: incorrect

1. 1.

   exhibiting (or failing to exhibit) political correctness.

   "it is not politically correct to laugh at speech impediments"

   synonyms:

   unoffensive, nondiscriminatory, unbiased, neutral, appropriate, nonpartisan; More informalPC "the true meaning may be clouded by his politically correct language"

   antonyms:

   offensive

With that out of the way we can see how this is effecting society in a broader sense.

Most likely you have heard of the Duck Dynasty controversy where some comments made during an interview with GQ magazine we declared to be homophobic and  not politically correct.
So you say what could it be so bad that multiple gay rights groups started hating on Phil Robertson the patriarch of the family.  We I'll have to quote directly.

“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

Read More http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson#ixzz2oK9T9Z9E

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

Read More http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson#ixzz2oKIC5PpW

The article has some odd course language in it that come from the writer.  I'm not sure it was necessary in reality.

So we see some over the top comments here.  Things that could potentially offend people.  But, here is the problem with political correctness.  Some times if you call the kettle black you get lambasted for doing so.  The other issue with political correctness is that depending on the source it is OK, and at other times it is not.  There is a definite double standard on comments in the political correctness arena.   "the good is called bad, and the bad called good".

The worst is how he quotes scriptures loosely (no specific scriptural reference is given in the article) and gets attacked for it.  The part that is hardest to understand is

Here is a good way to sum up what the political correctness thing is doing to society.





"In other words, A & E—like ESPN/ABC before them—believes that their "Duck Dynasty" audience is outraged, disgusted, or whatever by Phil the duck guy, and that enough of this audience would change the channel if Phill stayed on that A & E would lose money. Is A & E correct in this belief? Time will tell. - OldCoyote"

Read More http://www.gq.com/blogs/the-feed/2013/12/readers-react-to-gqs-duck-dynasty-story-and-phil-robertsons-indefinite-suspension.html#ixzz2oKRdzk00

See there is fear here.  People do not feel free to voice their opinion out of fear someone will call them insensitive, bigoted, homophobic or racist.  The whole freedom of speech (within limits) has been thrown out the window.  Feelings or perceived feelings are more important then reality.

At what point can we just get pasted the issue of your comments are going to offend someone and there is nothing that can be done about it.  Each little one percent minority group (sexual, racial, economic, etc) can't have everyone skewered and hung out to dry for every little comment.
NO I do think the line has to be drawn when one is inciting violence or the like.

Now some may argue that if this type of political correctness was in place in Nazi Germany then we would likely not have ended up with the holocaust the way we did.  Hard to say since that would be rewriting history.  Censoring ones comments in public also does not fix ones real at home or private opinions and actions.

It really does get hard to have a minority portion of the population push their views on the rest of society.    We have to stop this "whom ever yells/complains the loudest wins" type of situation.
Tolerance has to go both ways.  it is like a two way street.  Unfortunately a bicycle is plugging things up and making people turn around because they are being inconvenienced.  We have to stop that and get our heads out of the clouds.  We have to put things in to more black and white terms.  To clear up the murkiness that comes with political correctness, with redefining things to your benefit.

"But one thing is certain: the commandments have not changed. Let there be no mistake about that. Right is still right. Wrong is still wrong, no matter how cleverly cloaked in respectability or political correctness. We believe in chastity before marriage and fidelity ever after. That standard is an absolute standard of truth. It is neither subject to public opinion polls nor dependent upon situation or circumstance. There is no need to debate it or other gospel standards."
Like a Flame Unquenchable M. Russell Ballard Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

 

This sketch shows political correctness going over board.   Have we gotten to this point in society today?

 

"MSNBC & The Great Liberal Narrative: The Truth About The Tyranny of Political Correctness"

George Carlin On Politically Correct Language

After you watch these videos you will find that they include the extreme.  You might say they are so extreme that it might never happen.  But take the respond of the GLAAD spokesperson that the Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty was spouting lies. 
"GLAAD spokesman Wilson Cruz had an immediate response.
“Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe,” Cruz said. “He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans — and Americans — who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples"  ‘Duck Dynasty’ Star Bashes Gays

How off base can you get.  I fail to see the lie in the opinion as quoted out of the magazine article.
This is the problem with political correctness.  Claim the other is lying and shout louder then them and you win much of the time.  Make it hard to see the fact.... read the whole comment or opinion in context.   This is what they love to do...... Throw things at the wall hoping things will stick and that society in general will not look to closely at the details.

I'm reminded of the Emperor's New Cloths by Hans Christian Andersen.   It took a simple innocent young boy to say the truth about the non existent cloths.  Everyone was to afraid to offend, make feel bad or just plain be "Politically incorrect".   They did not want to call the kettle black.  Instead it became green or purple or something else.....
And that is what we have to fight today.




We have to fight the twisting of the truth to make it fit the narrative we want or they want.   We have to present the truth as we find it and help people come to their own conclusions.

That is one reason I like my church so much.  We don't say for you to just take our word for it.  Or to join or stay a member just because your parent is.  We say..... "Go and provide it"; "Ask the higher source if it really is what he has placed on earth!".   How many other organization, religions etc are willing to put it all on the line?

Buaidh - NO - Bas

A few of the many articles out there on the duck dynasty subject and other politically correct situations.

‘Duck Dynasty’ Star Thanks Fans for ‘Support’: ‘We’ve Had Kind of a Crazy Week’
‘Duck Dynasty’ Star Bashes Gays
‘Duck Dynasty’: Phil Robertson Anti-Gay Sermon Surfaces (Video)
No Other Gods By Elder Dallin H. Oaks Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
The Moral Force of Women By Elder D. Todd Christofferson Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
Readers React to GQ's 'Duck Dynasty' Story and Phil Robertson's Indefinite Suspension
Bill Maher & Dennis Miller on Free Speech vs Political Correctness (2002)

Pioneer Day

July 24th is celebrated all over Utah and some neighboring area as Pioneer Day.  The day celebrated as that which marked the arrive of Brigham Young and company to the Salt Lake Valley.
Likely a few others got there a little earlier and started to plant some crops as it was very late in the season already.

Though in reality there were "Pioneers" settling the west for year prior to the Saints coming to the Salt Lake Valley in 1847.  Many had been heading to Oregon previous to this for over 10 years and some even to California and other locations along the coast.
You could say that when the saints came into the Salt Lake Valley things really heated up.  That was the beginning of the larger western exodus.

Within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints the Pioneers embody the struggles of the early saints.
Many current members can trace their ancestors back to someone that came over in a covered wagon or used a handcart.

I'd like to expand on this Pioneer spirit and the idea presented by President Thomas S Monson in his article "The World Needs Pioneers Today".

Excellent Audio Clip on Pioneers and their spirit
To them of the Last Wagon - President J Reuben Clark Jr.


You see the pioneers embody a certain spirit that a precious few have.  A vision that in some cases is rare among people.
Take the person that had the vision to create the Internet, or the personal computer, or the automobile, etc.

But, that term relating to that vision comes from the people that trekked thousands of miles across the American continent to places unknown purely on faith that they could have a better life.
After a while those heading to Oregon went off the stories of those that preceded them.  They went of the stories, and not direct knowledge of the landscape or a guarantee that things would be better.  But, as the areas they lived began to be less productive they took the chance for land and with faith headed out.

But, this vision or faith in a better future can it be applied to those that are not creating new technologies or changing the way we live our life.  Assembly line manufacturing did that, computers did that, automobiles and airplanes did that......  but, can it be applied to other things.  Can it be applied to habits or religious beliefs.

I say yes!
President Monson says yes in his article as well.
And we need these modern pioneers.  Not just the people looking to make a better widget.  We need pioneers that don't accept past behaviors necessarily OK.  People like Mandela that fought against apartheid, like those  that worked to abolish slavery or segregation anywhere in the world.  Those that have fought and continue to fight for freedom, both politically and religiously.  We need it in the modern day person that say no to the trash being labeled as "entertainment", that stands up for morals in public and private life, for ethics, and proper treatment of our fellow beings.



"The passage of time dims our memories and diminishes our appreciation for those who walked the path of pain, leaving behind a tear-marked trail of nameless graves. But what of today’s challenges? Are there no rocky roads to travel, no rugged mountains to climb, no chasms to cross, no trails to blaze, no rivers to ford? Or is there a very present need for that pioneer spirit to guide us away from the dangers that threaten to engulf us and to lead us to a Zion of safety?" Thomas S Monson - The World Needs Modern Pioneers

There are many issues that still need to be dealt with today.  We have the wave of Gay Marriage, voting rights, rights to bare arms and the consequences of miss us.  We have right to education, or self expression, and even genocide in some parts of the world.
So as we celebrate Pioneer Day and those that came before us we need to look to the future.  What legacy do we want to leave in our little corner of the earth.  Do we want to be know as the one that sat idly by as these things happened?  Do we want to be the one that just turned a blind eye and gave up?


We are in need of people that look for the truth and take the high road in moral matters.  That go against the societal wave that seems to think many of these things are OK.  People that don't let "it's not hurting me or directly effecting me" take over when they really know it is the opposite.

"A dictionary defines a pioneer as “one who goes before to prepare or open up the way for others to follow.”³ Can we somehow muster the courage and steadfastness of purpose that characterized the pioneers of a former generation? Can you and I, in actual fact, be pioneers?

I know we can be. Oh, how the world needs pioneers today!" Thomas S Monson

Buaidh - NO - Bas

A few more thoughts on Marriage

Most of the talk these days is about gay marriage.  Oft forgotten is the fact that traditional marriage in America and around the world is falling by the way side.  Some even site this as a reason to allow for gay marriage....  "can't make things any worse"


In reality marriage has been under attack long before the gays started to make such a big deal out of it.  it may have started back in the free love days of the 60's and 70's.  The time when the sexual revolution began.  But, the seedy side of things has been a problem for years on end.
Child prostitution was an issues in England in the 1800's.  Royal families are full of less then legitimate heirs ..... some of which left their mark on history and did not just disappear in a convent somewhere.  Take Theresa Countess of Portugal the illegitimate daughter of Alfonso VI king of Leon and Castile.  Her son Alfonso Henriques became the first king of Portugal.


However, despite all this marriage has been falling apart for some time.  It is being attacked or damaged in a variety of ways.
First you have the fact that many states have made divorce "no fault".  That means you don't really need much of a reason to divorce your spouse.  Just claim differences that can not be resolved and presto.  Used to be you needed infidelity, or other types of abuse, or neglect.  That made people work on fixing things before heading to court.
Also there is a general attitude even among those interested in getting married that they will wait till they are better off financially, done with school etc.
Yes, once married you may have a kid or two come along fairly quickly.  Though delaying just creates other problems.
Along those same lines are those that feel let's just try things out for a time and see if it works out.  Then if things are going well we can officially hitch up even though we may have been living together for several years.  What does this create?  A higher rate of divorce for those that do get married after living together for a time.
Why?
Likely, it has to do with the lack of desire to fix things.  The lack of commitment that is created, and other related ideas and issues.



Then beyond the break down of marriage you have increasingly low birthrate in many countries due to the cost of living, and marriage related issues.  With persons delaying getting married you find also an increase in the delay of children or you find young children of older parents.  In the past people might get married by 20 and start setting up their own farm some where in the area of their families (farther west depending on land availability).  Thus the age span between generations is about 20 years +/- 5 years.
Now a days it is more like 30-40.  What a change.

So is there a solution to all this?
Is there something that can be done to fix society?  To strengthen marriage, make it more common place and at the same time make it better (better quality, more useful to society, more strengthening etc).
It may seem simple.  It may seem like 'why did I not think of that sooner'.  Just follow god's plan.  Spend time with your family and get your priorities right.  You find just this message in the below video.



One final thought.  Someone posted on facebook something along the following lines. 
'You can't read the bible in school.  But, they give them away for free in prison.  So maybe we wouldn't need to hand them out in prison, if we started to allow people to read the bible in school."
You get the point.

Want a book they likely won't tell you you can't read it at school?
Request a free copy here - Free not so banned book

Yes, we can fix things.  Hope is not all lost.  Stick with it and do what is right...... it will all work out in the end.


Buaidh - NO - Bas

Moral Dilemma

So this weekend we acquired a copy of the movie "The Box" staring Cameron Diaz to watch.  Boy it turned out to be a bit creepy.  Though the premise is very interesting.

If a guy shows up at your home and delivers you a box with a button on top with the following caveat (if you push the button you get 1 million dollars cash but some random unknown person will die) what would you do?

This follows a similar premise to the movie "Indecent Propsal".
Offering a million bucks for you to do something that you know is not appropriate.

So the question falls - where is your cut off point when it comes to immoral proposals?




Would you cave in at 1 million dollars, 10 million, or 100,000?

With the movie the box the couple stresses over what could happen and all the ramifications etc.  Then they basically think "no one will know, and the box has no wires and the like."

In the end it appears some type of alien group was conducting some type of physiological experiment, some high up level of the government. 

In reality we deal with see types of moral dilemmas on a daily basis.  Usually it is small stuff like dealing with a miss charge on a grocery bill or really stopping fully at that stop sign at 9pm at night.
Daily we have to internally fight off the everyone is doing it routine, and do the right thing.  Do we step up and admit we did something wrong?   Do we take responsibility when being handed the traffic ticket or do we fight it tooth and nail?

Just imagine how much better the world would be if everyone just did the right thing.  Though due to the way the plan is laid out we are always given our agency - the choice to make the decision and some times pick wrongly.




But, it was known that we would make mistakes, and since we had to be "unspotted" to enter the presence of God additional things were put into place to help us fill the gap become worthy to enter his presence.



Jesus was sent to fill that gap.  So all of us stressing over making the right choice can rest a little easier and know that if we do our best to make the hard moral choices we still have a way to come back if we chose wrong.

Would you like a free copy of a book that will help you to make the hard moral choices?  A book that lays out the plan of happiness?
A book that will make you feel better as you apply the things it teaches.  That help you to feel that not all is lost.  That there is good in the world today and you don't have to be the only one working for it?

Free book on God's Plan of Happiness

Buaidh - NO - Bas

Deceiving to get ahead in life. Is it right or is it wrong?

Well I'd like to broach the topic of deceiving in the workplace etc to get yourself ahead in the rat race of life.

Why do I bring this up?  I was watching a documentary on David Geffen the other night on one of the local PBS stations and found out that some of his success was all based on a lie and cover up of said deceit. (About: Inventing David Geffen PBS, 2012-11-07) He basically did not have any problem lying to get ahead in the workplace.  Very sad.  We eventually had to turn it off and change the channel since our daughter was watching as well.  I'd heard a bit about this man in the past and known of some of his success.  I just did not know it was based on lies and deceit.


Also I was reading something in a trade show magazine I receive called Exhibitor.  The article - Guerrillas in the Midst is very telling and informs you about some disturbing activities in the work place.
In the commentary it referred to a couple of blogosphere postings on how to get ahead in the marketing game by not paying anything.
The mentioned examples were a person going to a trade show and plastering posters and fliers all over the place like the stalls in the restroom etc.  Essentially, taking advantage of the trade shows setup without necessarily having a booth.  Not a good method if you do not have a booth.  Your therefore acting like a leech.

And talking about a leech.  The second example was an Asian guy who basically stole a persons identity at the trade show and then went on to promote his company all the while masquerading as the other guy.  Very low in deed.  Though in both cases the posters seemed to applaud them for their guerrilla tactics.  The commentary hopes the larger marketing industry will shun this type of activity.




Also during a discussion in church I learned about the length to which person will go to cheat on their exams in law school.  The person said people would throw in the trash in the bathroom some note cards with information that they could use in the test.  In the middle of the test they go to the bathroom and retrieve the information off the cards.  Coming back they have had some fresh information giving them a leg up on the rest of the students.  So due to this they now have to be accompanied to the bathroom during tests.  Oh the length to which people will go.




We find this also in the political arena.  Look at the underhanded tactics that have been used for the presidential campaign or even the local mayoral race for Los Angeles.  Full of half truths and misinformation being spread around to confuse the voter.  Most will not find out the truth..... or if they do ... by then the damage maybe done.
Just like when a lawyer leaks something out with the jury present in a line of questioning.  How does the jury forget these things even though they have heard them.  Kind of hard to "Disregard" that piece of information though inaccurate or misleading that is now out there. It taints the information pool and that is why the lawyers love to us it.

Look at the current IRS scandal. They targeted conservative groups to hold them up and stone wall their exempt status petitions.  Why do that?  If you can't get in the game you can't be effective.  And the fall out.  Fire or force out the acting head of the IRS who was set to retire in June.  Basically, push a scape goat out one month before he is set to retire.  Will anyone be held accountable for their actions?  We may never know.  This will loss strength in our 24 hour news cycle.  Then they will quietly sweep it under the rug.  No one will really find out who authorized what and when.
The problem is more why is this appearing to happen more frequently in the last few years?
Have things changed so much in the last 100 years?

"I recall a time—and some of you here tonight will also—when the standards of most people were very similar to our standards. No longer is this true. I recently read an article in the New York Times concerning a study which took place during the summer of 2008. A distinguished Notre Dame sociologist led a research team in conducting in-depth interviews with 230 young adults across America. I believe we can safely assume that the results would be similar in most parts of the world. "
Dare to Stand Alone Thomas S. Monson President of the Church

We now have the Internet, and 24 hour news stations.  But, are things getting worse or are we really just more hypersensitive?

Though this story relates how all is not lost.

"A friend related this experience her husband had while attending medical school. “Getting into medical school is pretty competitive, and the desire to do well and be successful puts a great deal of pressure on the new incoming freshmen. My husband had worked hard on his studies and went to attend his first examination. The honor system was expected behavior at the medical school. The professor passed out the examination and left the room. Within a short time, students started to pull little cheat papers out from under their papers or from their pockets. My husband recalled his heart beginning to pound as he realized it is pretty hard to compete against cheaters. About that time a tall, lanky student stood up in the back of the room and stated: ‘I left my hometown and put my wife and three little babies in an upstairs apartment and worked very hard to get into medical school. And I’ll turn in the first one of you who cheats, and you better believe it!’ They believed it. There were many sheepish expressions, and those cheat papers started to disappear as fast as they had appeared. He set a standard for the class which eventually graduated the largest group in the school’s history.” ²

The young, lanky medical student who challenged the cheaters was J Ballard Washburn, who became a respected physician and in later years received special recognition from the Utah Medical Association for his outstanding service as a medical doctor. He also served as a General Authority and is now the president of the Las Vegas Nevada Temple."

Honesty—a Moral Compass James E. Faust

The moral fabric of society is falling apart.

What was deemed unacceptable just a few years ago is now considered not so bad by some.  Take the change in music for example.  Many complained in the past about the gyrating hips of ELVIS.  Now some dancers in shows have maneuvers that simulate sex acts or other intimate activities reserved for married couples.  Even the lyrics are getting worse.  Some however thinly veiled talk about sexual things or use language not even suitable for an adult of any age.

So what are we to do?
What should we do?


We have to hold up the standard for ourselves even if it means that we might not get ahead as some would, or will.  We will in the end be conscious that we have done the right thing.

"Brethren, none within the sound of my voice should be in any doubt concerning what is moral and what is not, nor should any be in doubt about what is expected of us ... We have been and continue to be taught God’s laws. Despite what you may see or hear elsewhere, these laws are unchanging.

As we go about living from day to day, it is almost inevitable that our faith will be challenged. We may at times find ourselves surrounded by others and yet standing in the minority or even standing alone concerning what is acceptable and what is not. Do we have the moral courage to stand firm for our beliefs, even if by so doing we must stand alone? ... it is essential that we are able to face—with courage—whatever challenges come our way. Remember the words of Tennyson: “My strength is as the strength of ten, because my heart is pure.”

Dare to Stand Alone Thomas S. Monson President of the Church

"I can share with you a simple example from my own life of what parents can do. When I was about five or six years old, I lived across the street from a small grocery store. One day two other boys invited me to go with them to the store. As we stood coveting the candy for sale there, the older boy grabbed a candy bar and slipped it into his pocket. He urged the other boy and me to do the same, and after some hesitation we did. Then we quickly left the store and ran off in separate directions. I found a hiding place at home and tore off the candy wrapper. My mother discovered me with the chocolate evidence smeared on my face and escorted me back to the grocery store. As we crossed the street, I was sure I was facing life imprisonment. With sobs and tears, I apologized to the owner and paid him for the candy bar with a dime that my mother had loaned me (which I had to earn later). My mother’s love and discipline put an abrupt and early end to my life of crime."

Moral Discipline D. Todd Christofferson Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

 All is not lost.  We can start in our own homes and show the right direction by our actions.  We can train up our children to do the right.  And thus we can help to save the raising generation and the Nation in which we live.  For as the fabric of society falls apart and the family is attacked so goes the nation.  But, as we stem the tide and go against the flow of lacking morals and the like we can help to set a new standard.  Though in reality it is not a new standard.  For the standards of God do not change!

Buaidh - NO - Bas