I want to have some fun with Hoya’s reasoning …
 

The brethren have long counseled/admonished members to avoid R rated movies. In Canada the movie ratings system, criteria and intent is markedly different than in the US. In-fact there is no such thing as an R rating. Now, there is AA, and a movie that receives an R rating in the states will likely receive an AA rating in Canada … but so will all PG-13 and even many PG movies.

By following the exact counsel of the brethren my children and I will avoid all R rated movies –which will not be difficult because R rated movies do not exist!

Besides, watching movies with vulgar sexual and violent content may or may not adversely affect my salvation … After all there is not a precisely worded recommend question on the subject.

the most recent guidance from the apostles is not make our decisions based on a rating system. this is a no brainer.

But even still, it may or may not be essential to my salvation to listen to the guidance ... and perhaps the previously stated counsel to avoid R rated movies was erroneous, because it was not all inclusive as it only pertained to a specific geographic region ... hence the recent clarification.

It is a nice effort, but the brethren have only said to avoid harmful media images, SUCH AS those contained in R rated movies.

Of course, the determination of what is harmful is left up to each of us. This is, by the way, a great example of a universally stated principle. It applies to everyone, not to a certain geographic area.

It is also, by the way, another great example of a recommendation and not a commandment. Following this counsel can make other sins easier to avoid. Following the counsel is not required, though. I have struggled with this counsel as well, but have determined after much thought it is better for me to follow it.

You're killing me! THe principle is not "write your senator", the principle is support for the family as described in the proclamation for the family. The request was geography specific becasue the poitical act at issue is geographically limited.

I personally witnessed brethren emphatically state 'avoid R rated movies', and not merely harmful media images, such as ... all that has since been added for clarification.

Why does this appear to be the exact same thread that everyone else already bored of?

If the principle is "support the family" then the RECOMMENDED path for doing so is to support a constitutional amendment. It is NOT a DOCTRINALLY REQUIRED path. Seriously, how many ways can I say the same thing???

Again, why stop with this amendment? Why not make adultery illegal, and where it is already illegal, why not enforce laws prohibiting it? Why not make drinking illegal, since alcohol destroys lots of families? Why not make pre-marital sex illegal? Why not make divorce illegal?

Show me the logical distinction between any of those and saying gay marriage is illegal.

Show me why gay marriage is more harmful than adultery is to the family. Show me why gay marriage is more harmful than pre-marital sex to the family unit (which has led to 70% of African Americans being born into homes with only one parent). You aren't eliminating homosexuality, you are eliminating their status as married couples. So don't try and say any sin would disappear.

Is the institution of marriage harmed by the fact that over half of all marriages end in divorce? Let's just stop that, then! No more divorce. Right?

There are lots of paths you could legislate to "protect the family." I tend to think they are all misguided. Protecting the family, if that is the principle, is a worthy endeavor. The FORM chosen for doing so by this letter is not a worthy endeavor, as I have said over and over and over and over and..........


Tell me none of this sounds new to you, please...

Yes, they have said it many times. Because it is an example of (frequently) harmful media.

furthermore, I reiterate that following such counsel may or may not be essential to my salvation ... in fact there is not a precisely worded recommend question on the subject!

That phrase you quote "frequently harmfu media" did not exist in the orginal counsel ... I heard it with my own ears!