There’s not too many Mormons here in Illinois, but that ad has certainly caught the attention of all the Evangelical Christian listeners who are fans of Glenn Beck.

I bought the movie because of an Evangelical listener who told me about 1)Glenn Beck being a Mormon, and 2)Glenn quoting all these critics hailing it as the best Christian cinema has to offer.

So my neighbor (the Evangelical Christian) buys it, we watch it and we love it. He even thinks the movie has now converted me to “true grace.”

I very much believe that STATES OF GRACE has the rare – and historic – potential to break down many of the long-standing barriers separating mainstream Christians from us. Mitt Romney’s impending presidential campaign has already started to focus national media attention on the LDS Church in ways and at levels not previously seen. I’ve seen the polls suggesting that a significant percentage of the Christian base would have issues with Romney’s religious affiliation, and that misconceptions are still rampant as to what the LDS Church believes and stands for.

Can STATES OF GRACE become the landmark film that Kimball and others have talked about?

It answers simple misconceptions (ie. polygamy, Mormons dancing and our take on grace) and presents a view of LDS life that has never before made it to the big screen.

In short, does this film have the potential to actually shift and mold public opinion?

I may not be as well-versed as all of you, but in my neck of the woods, STATES OF GRACE is a hit among many of my Evangelical friends. I’d love to hear your thoughts…

I learned the word oblique yesterday in my grandson’s 2nd grade class. I thought it meant dense, but it means diagonal.

A Freudian, perhaps?

“I’ll call it cuddle. . .” He will never live that down as long as I’m alive.

Honestly, I’m so bothered by the censorship you refer to. It’s assinine.

Ha! I can hardly wait until my next speaking assignment!

So what does that mean about our squeamishness regarding anatomy? I have no conclusions.

Great comments, especially that we need to apply common sense, a sense of audience, and the spirit.

I think there are more sexually explicit scenes in the OT than the ones you’ve identified, though they are severly euphamized. Ruth uncovering Boaz’s feet, for example, is a Hebrew euphamism for getting the guy naked.

So maybe we should just write naughty stuff in LDS euphamisms?

But it’s late and there’s nothing else to say.

For instance, despite all the references to perversion in the Old Testament, I find none of it titillating. The worst part I can think of (and I’ve just finishing a course of listening to the OT on tape, and have read it through two or three times) is the daughters of Lot, but while the subject matter is disturbing there’s nothing faintly graphic.

The most visual of the books, of course, is the Song of Solomon. But we have a footnote informing us that, unlike any of the other books in the Bible, Joseph pronounced that one to be uninspired. It really belongs among the apocrypha and has, to borrow and alter a modern phrase, little redeeming spiritual value. Like many artists, Solomon became enchanted with mammaries and found them worthy of his panegyric.

The most grating of passages are actually those where the language seems very out of place today. The OT has a number of passages where an indelicate phrase is used to identify members of the male gender (he that directeth his urine stream horizontally against an upright structure, or words to that effect), but the one that makes me cringe most is where the woman greets Jesus with, “Blessed are the mammaries that provided you with nourishment,” etc. Yargh! The idea of using someone’s jockstrap (well, girdle) to illustrate a prophecy is perhaps more gut-wrenching, yet that’s just what we get in Acts in the warning issued to Paul.

Add to this the fact that Christ himself used the gastrointestinal tract as an illustration, saying that whatsoever goes into a man’s mouth is eventually expelled (as poo, of course).

This causes me to consider that some of our modern standards for what is in poor taste and what isn’t are not based on eternal principles, particularly when it comes to bodily functions that aren’t sexual.

On the other hand, Joseph Smith said the English-speaking world needed a better translation of the Bible than the 1611 KJV, partly because the authorized version is too gross (can’t remember the exact quote, but that was the message I got from it).

Hence the inspired translation, in which Joseph Smith straightens out all kinds of things, not just doctrinal statements but lots of lost history. He repeatedly corrected passages that reflected the culture of the world and incorrectly showed people such as Abraham and his servant did using the pagan tradition (which persisted into medieval times) of making an oath by putting a hand to the other man’s testicles (”under his thigh” is the KJV term); instead, they clasped hands. He also clarifies that Paul did not actually urge everyone in the church to routinely greet each other with a “holy kiss.”

All this has the effect of shaking up my modern assumptions, but also convinces me that no reliable standard is to be found through an appeal to appeal to ancient texts, translations, commentary and inspired revisions. Truly we have to have the guidance of common sense, an awareness of the standards of the culture we live in (LDS culture in particular) and, most of all, the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

And further this deponent saith naught.

I think the problem, though, comes from what is considered a worthy goal and what is considered strictly necessary to advance that goal. It would be cliche for me to refer to, oh, say Schindler’s List (or the violence in the Book of Mormon, or all the sex and violence in the Old Testament), but I think we can all agree that sometimes shocking, explicit, and even offensive imagery can make a good message even better, or at least more effective, but presumably, there is a point when the explicitness, shock, or offense of the imagery outweighs its utility.

So when have we crossed that line? I don’t think there’s an easy answwer, but you may be on to something with the “not meant to communicate but only to arouse.” Is it possible to arouse and also communicate something worthy? Or is it possible to arouse without intending to arouse, only intending to communicate?

Again, I don’t think there is an easy answer, but these are the questions that LDS writers and readers have to at least think about if not answer.