Add Reply
Add Comment As A Guest
Close Topic OptionsThe Little Man Who Wasn't There
The Man Wasn' T There - Mormon Doctrine Studies - Posted: 30th Aug, 2008 - 9:05am
Play Text RPG
- Location:
- International Discussions
- ➢
- ➢ Discuss
- ➢ General Religious Beliefs
- ➢ Mormon Doctrine Studies
Posts: 5 - Views: 893
KoZ2 - Kingdom of Zion Topic - Addressing sexual relations - opinion.
The Little Man Who Wasn't There
The Little Man Who Wasn't There
Another topic for rebuttal / Discussion...
| QUOTE |
The LITTLE MAN WHO ISN'T THERE by Samuel W. Taylor [1] The Little Man Who Isn't There by Samuel W. Taylor As I was going up the stair, I met a man who wasn't there. He wasn't there again today, I wish, I wish he'd go away. I must wonder if Mormons realize the significance of the fact that in California sexual relationships between consenting adults is no longer against the law, be it boy meets girl, girl meets girl, or boy meets boy. This landmark legislation was eventually achieved despite an impassioned stand by a coterie of legislators from a stronghold of rectitude in the southland who had previously blocked passage with Bibles opened, thundering denunciation of the abominations of Sodom and Gomorrah. Proponents of the legislation had maintained that the primary purpose of police work was to maintain law and order, not enforce private morality. Debate on the bill revealed that at Long Beach 25% of the city's police force had been detailed to full-time duty at latrines to apprehend gays, instead of being out coping with crimes of violence, street gangs, drive-by shootings, arson, robbery, drug dealing, and whatever. And this enlightened viewpoint eventually prevailed. In the onrush of permissive morality, gays and lesbians emerged from the closet, demanding their right to a deviant lifestyle. Throughout the nation restrictions against birth control information have been largely swept away. Abortion, formerly a back-alley crime with an appalling toll of unfortunate teenage victims, also is out of the closet, generally legal though bitterly contested. [2] The times, they are a-changing. You probably don't remember censorship conditions back when a motion picture, called "The Moon is Blue", was denied the Production Code imprimatur because the heroine uttered the awful line, "I'm a virgin." What shocking language! It implied, the censors said, that there might have been some doubt about the situation. Then when the film's producer refused to cut the line, the picture was denied the Production Code okay, which meant it couldn't be distributed through regular channels - a virtual death sentence. At that time, a total of 91 production companies obediently submitted their films "for the approval of the Production Code of the Motion Picture Association of America, Inc." There were three "General Principles": (1) "No picture...shall lower the standards of those who see it...."; (2) "Correct standards of life. . .shall be presented;" (3) "Law, natural or human, shall not be ridiculed...." "Particular Applications" included the following: Brutal killings are not to be presented in detail. Revenge in modern times shall not be justified. Methods of crime should not be explicitly presented. There must be no scenes which show the use of illegal drugs, or their effects, in detail. The use of liquor, when not required by the plot or for proper characterization, shall not be shown. As for boy meets girl, adultery or illicit sex must be explicitly treated or justified, or presented attractively. Scenes of passion are forbidden except when essential to the plot. And passion must be treated in such a manner so as not to stimulate the lower and baser emotions. They are never the proper subject for comedy. Sex perversion or any inference is forbidden--no gays, no incest, no child molestation, no window peepers, no rapists, no twisted killers. Profane or vulgar expressions, however used, are forbidden--such as "I'm a virgin." The following words or [3] phrases are verboten: Alley cat (applied to a woman); Bronx cheer (the sound); chippie, cocotte; God, Lord, Jesus, Christ (except reverently); cripes; fanny; fairy (in a vulgar sense); "Hold your hat"; Madam (supplied to prostitution); nance, nerts; nuts (except when meaning crazy); pansy; razberry (the sound); slut (applied to a woman); S.O.B.; son-of-a; tart; toilet gags; tom cat (applied to a man); traveling salesman and farmer's daughter jokes; whore; darn, hell (except when use is essential). Complete nudity is never permitted. Undressing scenes should be avoided. Dancing scenes must not permit undue exposure. Item: A girl's leg could be shown above the knee with stocking, or without stocking, but it was forbidden to show it partly with stocking and partly without. No couple can be shown together in bed, not even if married; they must sleep in twin beds. There must be no suggestion at any time of excessive brutality. There must be no display, at any time, of machine guns or sub-machine guns in the hands of gangsters, nor off-stage sounds of the repercussions of these guns. The flaunting of weapons by gangsters or other criminals will not be allowed. Gangsters mustn't even talk about guns. There must be no scenes showing law officers, bank guards or private detectives dying at the hands of criminals. Kidnapping cannot be the main theme of the story. The kidnapped person cannot be a child. There must be no details of how it was done. The kidnappers mustn't profit, and they must be punished. And, finally, "Because of its evil consequences, the drug traffic should not be presented in any form. The existence of the trade should not be brought to the attention of audiences." And this, kind friends and gentle hearts, was the situation when "The Moon is Blue" was denied the Production Code seal because the heroine said, "I'm a virgin." And so, denied release in general distribution channels, the film was booked here and there in independent theatres. Well, what [4] happened, it was a good movie, and news of the blackballing didn't hurt the box office. People loved it. They stood in line for tickets. Money talks, particularly in show business. As a result, "The Moon is Blue" went into national distribution, and the strangle-hold of the Production Code was broken forever. |
Sponsored Links:
There Wasnt Man The
Continued...
| QUOTE |
The pendulum has swung wildly in the other direction, until today the explicit bedroom scene is virtually obligatory, and the question is not, "Shall we dance?" but "My place or yours?" Screen dialogue is reminiscent of an army barracks. Best-selling authors are turning out sex books which in the good old days would have circulated under the counter or in "adult" bookstores. Instead of saying, "I love you", the swain today with a four-letter word invites the lovely young thing to hop into bed. That, alas, is the new romance. The only unutterable words at present are "good taste". The LDS Church is most firmly opposed to the new permissiveness. We are enlisted in anti-pornography drives. In areas which it can control, such as productions on its stages, films made by the BYU Motion Picture Department, and conduct of its membership, there is no compromise with traditional values. This is as it should be. Certainly moral standards are the concern of a church, just as law and order are of the police. Yet amidst the brouhaha, I wonder if the Saints in general realize what the new permissiveness which is sweeping the nation's culture could mean to them personally, and the predicament in which it might possibly place the Church? While members in good standing would show scant interest in the new freedom as it pertains to homosexuality, to group love, to wife-swapping and promiscuous "swinging", how many of us are aware that the new permissiveness has actually repealed laws against the practice of plural marriage? Of course, every state has laws against bigamy, but I'm talking about the practice. The distinction is that, except for a [5] few years, the practice was secret; and the marriage ceremony was always secret. When Ann Eliza Webb sued Brigham Young for divorce, she called herself "wife number 19." Irving Wallace called her "The Twenty-Seventh Wife." But John J. Steward listed her as number 51 of a total of 53. John Taylor had seven "official" wives, but my brother Raymond confirmed nine "lesser-known" ones, for a total of 16. My mother was married in the New and Everlasting Covenant during a carriage ride in Liberty Park. None of her eight children had a birth certificate. Polygamy was officially denied but secretly practiced because of the belief that it was the only means of attaining the Celestial Glory. With the new permissiveness, a man could live with one mistress or with several wives, unhampered by the law. Section 132 is still in the Doctrine and Covenants. Plural marriage is still part of our doctrine. The practice was discontinued for one reason, and one reason only: it had been declared illegal. In issuing the Manifesto, President Woodruff said, Inasmuch as laws have been enacted in Congress forbidding plural marriage, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, . . . I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land. We should remember that the Manifesto came only after the Church had fought tenaciously with its every resource for a period of twenty-eight years against federal laws prohibiting polygamy. The appeal to higher courts was based on the first amendment to the Constitution, which forbade Congress to infringe upon religious freedom. Legally, polygamy wasn't a crime malum en se -- bad in itself because of injury to others, such as arson, murder, extortion, rape or robbery--but was malum prohibitum, a crime only because there was a law against it. Plural marriage injured nobody; Gentiles simply [6] imposed their own moral code upon the Mormon marriage relationship. When the Supreme Court upheld anti-polygamy legislation in 1879, the Church chose to obey the law of God in defiance of the law of the land for a period of eleven years, before finally issuing the Manifesto in 1890. And in practice, the Woodruff Manifesto meant that the Church officially ceased the practice, while the priesthood authority simply took it underground again, as it had been practiced throughout most of the Church's history. While polygamy was against the law of the land, there was no law against it on the high seas. In Canada you could have one extra wife, in Mexico, as many as you wished. In my home town, Provo, there were a number of "old maids" whom we all knew were "latter-day" secret wives. One of these was on the BYU faculty when I attended, while a man professor had three wives. The Salt Lake Tribune accused seven Apostles of taking wives after the Manifesto, while in Dialogue (18:62-63), Michael Quinn said, "Circumstantial evidence indicates that Wilford Woodruff married Madame (Lydia von F) Mountford as a plural wife in 1897" which was seven years after the Manifesto. There were at least a dozen manifestos plugging various gaps until the last and absolutely final--final one in 1933, one hundred and three years after the revelation of 1831 first initiated the practice of plural marriage as Church doctrine. Inasmuch as my grandfather, John Taylor, initiated what was called the "grand conspiracy" of taking the Principle underground, and personally set apart hundreds of men to perform marriages, with endowments, "at any place convenient"; inasmuch as he led this rebellion to the day of his death [7] -- he died on the underground with a price on his head -- I feel close to this gallant struggle against hopeless odds. And I wonder what Mormons would do if the repeal of sex laws swept away the only reason for not obeying the Section 132? Would we, or would we not, embrace the awesome responsibilities undertaken by past generations? While my crystal ball license has expired and I've mislaid my seer stone, I suspect that regardless of Section 132, the Saints would put up a ferocious fight against legislation that would result in the right to practice the Principle. My guess is that if such laws should sweep the country, Utah and the states of what H L called the Bible Belt would stand firm in opposition. And that strange sound you would hear would be John Taylor and other pioneer stalwarts whirling in their graves. |
The Little Man Who Wasn't There Studies Doctrine Mormon
Is there a year available of when this was published? It is so interesting to me to think of what the standards were for shows and now....WHAT STANDARDS?
There Wasnt Man The
I think one of the saddest conversations I ever heard took place among women of the church that were endowed members. They were discussing ways that allowed them to wear the shorter pants or shorter sleeves without showing their garments. What really got to me was if they could hear what they were saying from the outside--it sounded something along the lines of, "I want to wear these fashions and if I can buy my garments a size or two smaller or get a petite, then I am still wearing them but I get the best of both worlds", kind of attitude. I think that in that situation the Lord would be less pleased with us then someone out of the church wearing a tank top or mini skirt. Just my opinion.
TOPIC: The Little Man Who Wasn't There