The Book of Mormon is not for kids

[GB-UK]

Originally Posted by Vort

I would not watch The Passion of the Christ if you paid me. From everything I have heard, it was a pornography of violence. I have much better things to do with my time and thoughts than to watch such crap, such as picking scabs and posting on internet forums.

Not really, it is a very moving movie which brings home the terrible cruelty that crucifiction is and shows what the saviour endured so we might gain salvation. Its a movie about faith and the hope that comes from that faith. Though it's not suitable for children, that does not mean its a pornography of violence and it certainly isn't crap.

[FunkyTown]

Originally Posted by GB-UK

Not really, it is a very moving movie which brings home the terrible cruelty that crucifiction is and shows what the saviour endured so we might gain salvation. Its a movie about faith and the hope that comes from that faith. Though it's not suitable for children, that does not mean its a pornography of violence and it certainly isn't crap.

Yes. I find it ironic that we talk about the Saviour's sacrifice in nearly every Sunday, but when someone drives home the point by making a film about it, it offends everyone.

I think it's important to know just what we're talking about.

[Vort]

Originally Posted by GB-UK

Not really, it is a very moving movie which brings home the terrible cruelty that crucifiction is and shows what the saviour endured so we might gain salvation.

Having never seen the movie, I can nevertheless state with absolute assurance that it does not portray a significant fraction of what the Savior endured so that we might gain salvation.

Originally Posted by GB-UK

Though it's not suitable for children, that does not mean its a pornography of violence and it certainly isn't crap.

I might perhaps take your word for it. Or not. In either case, I will never watch it. The very idea is repulsive: "Let's watch a man be slowly tortured to death, and then say how wonderful it is!"

Christ's atonement was wrought primarily in the Garden of Gethsemane. The crucifixion was an ugly dénouement to the real suffering of the atonement (though McConkie believed and taught that the pains of Gethsemane returned to Christ on the cross). In any case, it is the spiritual cost that we celebrate, not the ruthless torture of the flesh.

Any movie that celebrates torturing someone to death and makes it the front and center of the film sounds like pure crap to me. I'd sooner pollute my mind with some vomitous fornication flick like American Pie then claim entertainment in watching someone get tortured to death.

[Origen]

Some kids are more sensitive than others so it's really impossible to make an accurate blanket statement about this. I think eventually everyone must accept that the world can be a cruel and brutal place, but some kids are better off learning later when they have matured somewhat.

Originally Posted by Vort
I would not watch The Passion of the Christ if you paid me. From everything I have heard, it was a pornography of violence.

Even I thought the violence in The Passion was overdone - and I was able to sit through Kill Bill volume 1 without blinking. Don't get me wrong, it had it's moments (the flashback involving Mary Magdelene was especially moving) but I can't see anyone being moved to become Christian after watching that gore-fest (though apparently some people did drop on their knees in the theater and convert on the spot). Personally, I thought The Last Temptation was a much better movie and I gained a much deeper appreciation of Jesus' sacrifice after watching it.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally Posted by Vort

I would not watch The Passion of the Christ if you paid me. From everything I have heard, it was a pornography of violence. I have much better things to do with my time and thoughts than to watch such crap, such as picking scabs and posting on internet forums.

I can understand you choosing not to watch it. However, to merely repeat such dismissive commentary, when you have not seen it...especially when so many have reported being deeply moved toward faith by it, seems out of character for you. Some could not get past the very realistic violence of it. However, this film struck me as a powerful meditation on the suffering of the Christ. It was raw, but authentic.

I would add that while Christ's suffering was spiritual, it was also very physical. Why deny that reality? Christ was fully human. It really hurt to be beaten, tortured, suffocated...crucified. Golgatha is not in competition with Gethsamene. It detracts not one iota from Christ's spiritual wrestling at the Garden, that He suffered tremendous physical pain leading up to and including Calvary.

[BrioCyrain]

All you have very good points, which I must agree with my sister upon the crucifition mentality, we aren't meant to "celebrate" christ's death, but celebrate the resurrection and the fulfillmet that the resurrection gave everyone through the atonement.

That and I have to agree that most of the violence in the book of mormon is generalized.

[BrioCyrain]

Originally Posted by prisonchaplain

Christ was fully human.

Um, about that.

If he's the only begotten of the father, and had no earthly father, how is he fully human? It's quite known that he was "Half-human" and half-god. Thus, the son of god who was able to endure a lot more than any of us can imagine. Going without food for months=not fully human, walking on water= not fully human, taking all the sins of the world=not fully human, and surviving his heart being pieced=instant death for a fully human, but somehow he survived and went on his business until he "gave up the ghost" where he "died" on his own accord. That and the resurrection cleary states he was able to go back into his body on his own accord, not sure how many of us can do that.

[john doe]

I disagree. He was fully human. And fully God. He was and is both, completely.

[pam]

Originally Posted by BrioCyrain

Um, about that.

If he's the only begotten of the father, and had no earthly father, how is he fully human? It's quite known that he was "Half-human" and half-god. Thus, the son of god who was able to endure a lot more than any of us can imagine. Going without food for months=not fully human, walking on water= not fully human, taking all the sins of the world=not fully human, and surviving his heart being pieced=instant death for a fully human, but somehow he survived and went on his business until he "gave up the ghost" where he "died" on his own accord. That and the resurrection cleary states he was able to go back into his body on his own accord, not sure how many of us can do that.

Peter also walked on water. Would you say he was also not fully human?

[BrioCyrain]

He walked on water with the help of Christ, I'm pretty sure if Christ wasn't there to give him the power he wouldn't have been given the ability to walk on water. The only times we are given godly powers is if the Lord or our Heavenly Father wants us to do something.