Thought from L. Tom Perry’s April 2015 conference talk “Why Marriage and Family Matter—Everywhere in the World”

I was reading my general conference edition of the Ensign and I ran across Elder Perry’s talk “Why Marriage and Family Matter—Everywhere inthe World”.  One part of his talk stuck out especially to me and I wanted to share it and my thoughts on it.

Concerning factors contributing to the difficulty of raising good families today, Elder Perry said:

One problem is that much of the media and entertainment that the world shares does not reflect the priorities and values of the majority. For whatever reasons, too much of our television, movies, music, and Internet present a classic case of a minority masquerading as a majority. Immorality and amorality, ranging from graphic violence to recreational sex, is portrayed as the norm and can cause those who have mainstream values to feel like we are out of date or from a bygone era. In such a media and Internet-dominated world, it has never been harder to raise responsible children and to keep marriages and families together.

As a writer who is working on a first novel and who has noticed the conventions of certain types of story-telling, I can say that there are reasons for this. 

Modern story-telling is designed to hook with extremes.  Extreme love, extreme violence, extreme whatever.  This is to compete with everything else that is out there in order to capture eyeballs and draw advertising dollars.   Extremes desensitize. 

Modern entertainment requires excitement, and the things that excite the world are not the same as what interests those who have been converted and changed by the Holy Ghost.  The natural man and the spiritual man like different things.  

Writers writing scripts about family dynamics may be handicapped by less-than-deal upbringing themselves.  If all they experienced was yelling and fighting, then any portrayal of a peaceful family is going to seem cheesy and unrealistic to them.  They will write what they know. 

Also, depending on the demographic the movie/TV show/ book is designed to appeal to, this sets certain limits on characters, types of plots, and types of things that can happen to make the story work.  These limits tend to construct story in certain ways and leave out things that would be more realistic.

Take a movie with a child protagonist.  Protagonists must be active and make significant choices.  In real life, many big decisions are made for children by their parents.  So, in order for child protagonists to make important decisions for themselves, writers have to set the child protagonist in a family situation that is not ideal:

1)    The child is an orphan

2)    One of the parents is missing (divorce, death, abandonment) and another parent is neglectful or distant

3)    Or both parents are missing and the child is being raised by an older sibling

4)    Or the child is away from the parent(s) for whatever reason—school, camp, job, with friends, etc.

The fact that writers have to work so hard to get the child protagonist away from the parent is actually a nod to the truth that parents matter and that they make things better for their children.  Or the writer writes the parent characters so they are dysfunctional and then the conflict between parent and child becomes part of the plot.  Sadly, this doesn’t help build respect for parental authority. 

In the past, episodic stories were a good way to develop all the characters of a fictional family.  They also did a pretty good job of showing the types of little funny situations families would get into and then develop them to bring out the humor.  This essentially gave rise to situation-comedies (sitcoms), many of which had wholesome family dynamics and situations.  But they’ve been getting edgier and edgier for a long time.  

So, be aware that the demands of story-telling and entertainment for authors and producers have been allowed to take higher priority than family values of stability.

Another way that entertainment values tend to overshadow traditional family values is by the addition of conflict.  In real life, our goal is to get rid of conflict and smooth things over.  In story, however, conflict is an important tool for building tension in a story that creates interest, and authors must try to create conflict to draw people in.  (When I was a teenager I remember after seeing a play that was labeled a “family drama,” I decided the definition of a family drama is: a show in which family members take turns yelling at each other to make the other feel guilty and the one with the last word wins.) So, story conflict is not a true gauge of the conflict in reality, nor should it be used as a guide for settling conflicts in reality because story solutions are often slip-shod, hand wavium.

Let’s consider what is required to produce a fairly popular film about family. 

Films must have one or two main characters, otherwise the story gets too unfocused. If the main characters are the parents, then the conflict will arise because of the children.  Too often, the children in the movie demonstrate smart-alec disrespectful behavior, but the film writers also give them a lot of witty dialogue to maintain our interest, so that kind of behavior is essentially glorified.  Hopefully plot problems will be resolved in a way that demonstrates good skills, but this doesn’t necessarily happen if there is hand wavium.

If the main characters are the children, then the conflict will arise because of the parents. Thus, to create dramatic conflict required for the story, the parents have to be portrayed with all sorts of faults—overprotective, or neglectful, or overbearing, or whatever-- and that doesn’t do well for reinforcing respect for parental authority in real life. 

A two-hour film only has time to develop one main conflict and maybe two sub-conflicts.  This is really very artificial.

So what alternatives do we have for entertainment that that shows good examples of good families?

I want to share with you a few of my favorite books that I think do a better job.

Cheaper By The Dozen by Frank B. Gilbreth Jr. and Ernestine Gilbreth Carey – This is is the story of a family of twelve children, whose father was an efficiency expert around the time when cars were horseless carriages.  He applied his work to his family life as well.  It is fascinating to see the challenges they faced and how they solved them. The dad is a great example of someone who creates fun ways to encourage his children to learn.  There are also great examples of family counsels and how siblings were protective of each other.

Who gets the Drumstick? By Helen Beardsley – This is the book on which the movie “Yours, Mine, and Ours” (starring Lucille Ball and Henry Fonda) was based.  It is the true story of how a widow with eight children met and married a widower with ten children and how they made their huge blended family a success.  It gives us a sample of the systems they had to create to make their family run successful and how they solved some of the interpersonal conflicts as children had to adjust their family rolls to make room for new siblings.

The Family Nobody Wanted by Helen Doss – This is the true story of an infertile couple that gradually adopted twelve children (some of different races). It gives a very nice family flavor of their challenges and interactions. What is also rather amusing is that all the way through it, the father is absolutely convinced that this time, this adoption is the last one. 

The modern approach to story telling is not how it has always been, however.  It gradually evolved over time, so it is possible to read stories from earlier eras that are much more in line with our values and which catered to different reader expectations.  One of my favorite series to read are those written by L. M. Montgomery.  She is best known for her Anne of Green Gables books.  In that era, writers were often expected to include some sort of moral in their fiction, and it might be done with heavy-handedness, or it might be more graceful and light.  I personally think Montgomery used a lighter hand, but compared to what you see now in fiction, her writing has such a wholesome tone to it.

We are not confined to just the popular entertainment of today.  We can find better stuff out there, stuff that has stood the test of time because of its goodness and skill. Yes, we have to search for it, but that is part of our faith – “If there is anything virtuous, lovely, of good report, or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.”  And once we find it and enjoy it, we have good alternatives to enthuse about to our friends and neighbors and coworkers.

Doctrine of cell phone usage from the scriptures

This started out as a fun exercise in applying the scriptures to modern problems, and turned into an instructive experience.

I suppose the title is a little misleading because I don’t presume to give doctrine. Nor are cell phones mentioned specifically in the standard works. ;-) So my search had to be a little creative to find what the scriptures said that could apply to cell phone usage and which could suggest principles by which we can govern ourselves and principles we can teach our children.

Good communication is important

Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. (Ephesians 4:29)

That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; (1 Timothy 6:18)

But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased. (Hebrews 13:16)

Avoid Gossip

And many more things did the people imagine up in their hearts, which were foolish and vain; and they were much disturbed, for Satan did stir them up to do iniquity continually; yea, he did go about spreading rumors and contentions upon all the face of the land, that he might harden the hearts of the people against that which was good and against that which should come. (Helaman 16:22)

And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not. (1 Tim. 5:13)

Shall vain words have an end? (Job 16:3)

Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners. (1 Cor. 15:33)

But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. (2 Timothy 2:16)

But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. (Matthew 12:36)

…commune with your own heart upon your bed, and be still (Psalm 4:4)

Avoid distraction

Suffer not yourself to be led away by any vain or foolish thing (Alma 39:11)

And this I speak for your own profit;… that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction. (1 Cor. 7:35)

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: (Eccl. 3:1)

Avoid vanity (turn to God)

For they saw and beheld with great sorrow that the people of the church began to be lifted up in the pride of their eyes, and to set their hearts upon riches and upon the vain things of the world… (Alma 4:8)

O how foolish, and how vain, and how evil, and devilish, and how quick to do iniquity, and how slow to do good, are the children of men; yea, how quick to hearken unto the words of the evil one, and to set their hearts upon the vain things of the world! (Helaman 12:4)

And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein: (Acts 14:15)

Idleness

Thou shalt not be idle; for he that is idle shall not eat the bread nor wear the garments of the laborer. (D&C 42:42)

wherefore, I give unto them a commandment, thus: Thou shalt not idle away thy time, neither shalt thou bury thy talent that it may not be known. (D&C 60:13)

So, to summarize:
• Good communication edifies (builds up) the hearer and doesn’t waste their time.
• We need to be willing to communicate, both through technology and in person.
• Don’t forget to communicate important stuff. Sometimes it is a sacrifice to communicate.
• Cell phone use can spread news very quickly, but Satan uses rumors and contentions to disturb the peace and harden hearts.
• Gossiping leads to idleness.
• Unimportant communication is never-ending.
• Evil words lead to evil acts.
• Talking about nothing leads to talking about improper topics as people try to fill the time.
• Everyone will have to account for every word they say.
• Don’t be afraid to be quiet by yourself and reflect.
• Don’t let yourself be distracted, especially by little unimportant things.
• Make sure you are able to read scriptures, pray, go to church, and worship God without being distracted.
• There’s a time for everything. There’s a time to talk in person, and there’s a time to use the cell phone. There’s a time to have the cell phone on and a time to have it off.
• We will have a tendency to set our hearts on things that don’t matter. We will have a tendency to abuse cell phones and use them as an excuse to not engage people around us.
• When cell phone use gets in the way of the more important things, it becomes a vanity.
• There are more important things to do than just play with a cell phone.

Judging a movie

I happen to be taking a film class this semester. Let me tell you, it is an education, and sometimes not always a good one. I want to pass on some things I’ve learned that I hope will help you increase your ability to judge films with righteous judgment.

One thing I’ve learned is that it is not enough to say, “_____ was a good film”, because the question “Why?” quickly arises. Too often we speak only in generalities. In order to evaluate (meaning to form an idea of the value of) a film, we must judge by certain specific criteria.

One criteria that people often use to judge a film is by whether it is realistic or not. They get really into looking at the props and whether they are accurately depicted for the time period the film is set in. They point out when the hero doesn’t reload his gun when he should. They wonder whether people would really act that way. War movies are especially judged by this criterion. Were the Nazis brutal enough? Was enough blood spattered in a realistic manner? It seems to me that there is some realism that is not worth seeing, because the desensitizing effect on our spirit would outweigh any educational benefit we might receive from seeing what it was really like.

Another criterion that is often used to judge a film is by morality. I very much like this criteria, of course, because my religion is so much a part of my life that I see the world through the lens of morality. The thing that very much disturbs me is that my film book seems to be ambivalent about moral criteria as an important criteria for judgment or for making an effective film. It merely acknowledges that some people think that obscenity, nudity, and violence is bad, whereas others think those elements are praiseworthy. It suggests that a film might be praised morally for its overall view of life as suggested by its form as a whole, even though its individual elements might be considered offensive. If we admit this to be the case, we find ourselves wondering where to draw the line—how much swearing, sexual content, violence, etc. can a movie have before it becomes bad? How much safer to avoid it! And then, of course, we find out that someone has made a film that has none of these things in it, but which deals with a terrible theme in such a way as to make it unfit for consumption.

One thing I always used to wonder about was why filmmakers would get so upset when other companies would edit the obscenity, nudity, sexual content, and violence from their films. It never seemed like that kind of stuff is necessary to the plot. In my film textbook, it says, “If form in cinema is the overall interrelation among various systems of elements, we can assume that every element has one or more functions. That is, every element will be seen as fulfilling roles within the whole system…One useful way to grasp the function of an element is to ask what other elements demand that it be present.” (1) So, somehow, the filmmakers make a story that is so constructed that those elements of obscenity, nudity, sexual content, and violence are in some twisted way important to the effect or progression of the plot.

Let’s take an example. Enchanted . PG, right? The scene that most disturbs me is when Robert walks in on Gizelle when she’s just getting out of the shower. (Guys do not just walk in to the bathroom when they know that a strange woman they took in from off the street is taking a shower!) Pigeons cover her up with a towel just in time, before there is nudity, but still the shock of what almost happened.. Oh, words fail me. And then somehow they end up stumbling around and she falls on top of him on the hallway floor, still in her towel, just as his girlfriend walks in. ARGH! Why did they have to put all of this in there?!

In my frustration with it, I thought about how it affects the events in the story. First, it sows the seeds of distrust in the girlfriend so that she begins to distance herself from Robert. (Robert and Gizelle are going to end up together somehow..) Also, it provides the groundwork for the totally cute musical number later in which Gizelle tells Robert how to patch things up with his girlfriend (and the musical number ironically becomes another bonding experience between Robert and Gizelle). We could take out that shower bit and then we’d have no premise to support some of the other events that happen afterwards.

When this kind of content is necessary to the plot, the plot itself has moral flaws. Could it be improved? I bet it could. The story would have to take a rough massaging, but it could be done.

Lets move on to some of the other criteria used to judge a film. These are criteria that the book says are artistic.

First there is coherence, which is also called unity. I like to think of this as an indication that the film has started in the right place in the story and ended when it should, and that it has a feeling of completeness, that the various elements reinforce each other and accumulate a meaning for the viewer.

Then there is the criterion of intensity of effect. This refers to whether a film is striking or emotionally engaging to the viewer. Many filmmakers are trying to get as strong an emotional response from us as possible, so when we say that we are not affected by a film, we are truly desensitized.

As Latter-day Saints, we spend as much as our lives as possible sensitizing ourselves to moral situations so that we can make good choices. The more sensitive we get, the more we will notice things in the films we watch. We may find that films we liked years ago become painful to watch now. That is okay; it just means we need a higher level of entertainment.

I have to make a comment about an aspect of intensity of effect. Latter-day Saint artists, in trying to create stories or films or paintings or whatever with emotional intensity have to constantly make choices about far they will go to achieve an effect. How far will you go to convey the idea of love? Filmmakers think that means steaming up the screen with sexual content, but if we put morality as our top priority, we know sexual content is off-limits. The intensity of effect must be achieved some other way—through the accumulation of many small and simple things.

Another criterion for evaluating film is that of complexity. A complex film is one that is interesting on different levels. It could be that the characters are complex mixtures of good and evil. It could be that the plot has unexpected twists and turns. It could be that the topics that are examined are difficult and puzzling. It could be that there are different storylines going on at once. It could be that focus is on a larger number of characters rather than on just a small number.

Here too in the issue of complexity there is potential for abuse. For instance, I really, really don’t like it when the hero or heroine becomes such a complex mix of good an evil that it seems impossible that they could ever pull off the heroic action. I am constantly annoyed by whiny heroes and whiny heroines who are fighting their heroic “call” up to the moment that they start doing their hero thing. In my mind, heroism requires strength of character that has to be built up over a period of time through smaller feats of heroism. I'd like to see those preparatory feats. I subscribe to the idea of the “prepared hero”. I also don’t like the idea of characters that do both very terrible and very good things. A bitter tree can not give good fruit and a good tree can not give bitter fruit.

When films examine topics that are difficult and puzzling, it seems like it is almost on a collision course with moral criteria, because difficult topics (like marital relations, aging, death, illness, gender issues, and so on) require sensitive treatment and a velvet touch, yet filmmakers are still going for that intensity of effect, trying to knock our socks off.

Another criterion is that of originality. There seems to be some kind of idea out there that it is original if films depict good things to be bad. I’ve already run up against the idea of making the villain the hero. Ones in which marriage is portrayed as inhibiting and divisive and religion is portrayed as evil and yada yada yada…. this is seen as original? The problem with doing this is that soon the good value of the thing demonized is forgotten and with proliferation of this point of view, the other point of view disappears and then bad marriages are viewed as the only ones worth portraying, oppressive and bigoted religion is the only religion that appears, snotty rude children are the only ones shown on film, and so on.

I think true originality lies in discovering something good that no one quite noticed before, saying the truth in a fresh way. And being original in a moral way is actually spiritually demanding and requires inspiration and the help of God for it to be genuine and not sentimental. This is why I feel that morality is an integral part of art and the creative process.

This has been a bit of a rant, but I really had to get it off my chest. Thanks for listening.

Citations
(1) Film Art: An Introduction, David Bordwell and Kristen Thompson, p65

The Perils of Convenience

7 And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time.
8 And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him.
9 Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing.
10 And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused him.
11 And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate. (Luke 23:7-11)

When I read this this morning I was struck by the fact that Herod was excited to see Jesus and that he had wanted to see him for a long time. What a disappointment he must have felt to be asking lots of questions, wanting answers, and receive silence in return!

Why did Jesus remain silent when He had the opportunity to teach a ruler who was eager to see Him and eager for answers?

His mortal ministry was over and now was the time for Him to die for all man. His time of teaching was past. If He were to open His mouth now He might be prevented from reaching from the cross.

But what of Herod’s soul? Surely Herod deserved to hear the gospel too! I read over these verses again and then I realized that Herod had already had his chance. He had heard many things about Jesus already.

It says Herod had wanted to see Jesus for a long time. Okay, so why didn’t he just go see Jesus before? Why didn’t he search Jesus out? He was rich. He was powerful. He could have cleared his schedule for a day or a week or maybe even more.. But maybe it didn’t seem convenient. All that common, ignorant rabble around all the time. Who likes to fight crowds? So instead he waited and waited and finally Jesus came to him. Ultimate convenience! As part of the course of usual business of the day he could interview Jesus at his own leisure. But unbeknownst to him, the time had changed, the window of opportunity had closed.

But maybe Herod’s interest hadn’t been the right kind. It says he hoped to see Jesus do a miracle. Sounds like he wanted an entertaining magic show more than anything else. So when he finds there will be no miracles forthcoming, he falls back on entertainment plan B—making fun of Jesus. You have to get your fun wherever you can, right?

So what do I get from this? It seems pretty clear to me that I have to go searching for truth and not wait, because there will come a time when the window of opportunity and time for searching will end. It shows me that if I wait until it is convenient, I will probably have waited too long. And it shows me that I also have to search for the right reasons. Following Christ isn’t about being entertained; it’s a matter of life and death.