Though I am not a prolific poet, the poetry I write is usually infused with gospel concepts and imagery. But I had never thought of poetry so directly inspired by scriptural narratives before.

As is usual for me, the time between when the idea for a poem occurs to me and when I actually write it is substantial. It has been well over a year, and I am now approaching the one year anniversary of my trip to Israel for Sukkot, the Feast of the Tabernacles.

This last Sunday, I sat down and wrote a draft of the first poem, and then honed it during the next day and a half. Hope you enjoy it.

____________________________

By the Hand of Uriah
( 2 Samuel 11 : 14 – 15 )

Just open it! one roared a goading taunt,
and then the rest in chorus joined the dare.
We face the foe alone, the king doth not,
so open up the letter that you bear.

For not a moment tempted was his eye.
Oh faithless fools! he shouted as he stood.
Though least among his mighty men am I,
with Israel’s king I stand; his word is good.

My honor tried by query of the king,
though sore I yearned to know my wife once more,
while cov’nant’s ark in tent doth dwell, such thing
I would not do and slept outside the door.

To my hand commends the king what he did write.
In vain his trust is not, as God’s my light!

____________________________

Read more of my original poetry.

Even though we both wanted to see it, my wife ended up watching the movie without me while I was at work. She called me, shocked, because the film contained a scene full of gratuitous nudity and explicit sexual activity. Embarrassed, I double checked that the film had been PG-13 using an Internet search. A closer look at the DVD container showed that the DVD contained an “Unrated” version of the movie. We had fallen for a bait-and-switch! The theatrical version had been rated PG-13, but it was not available to be rented on DVD. You could only rent the “Unrated” version.

That was our first experience with “Unrated” DVDs. A few years have passed since then, and releasing “Unrated” versions of films to DVD has become increasingly commonplace. We have had to be extra careful when renting films to make sure we are getting what we intended.

When DVDs were first being introduced, one of the advantages they offered was that filmmakers would be able to offer different versions of the film on the same disk, and that the viewer could choose which version they wanted to watch. You could choose to watch in widescreen or standard, dubbed in a variety of languages, or with commentary by those involved in making the film. Later studios were releasing “extended” edits with additional parts that had not been included in the theatrical release, for example “The Lord of the Rings”.

Early on in the push toward DVD technology there had even been some discussion of the possibility of DVDs carrying multiple edits of the film at different ratings, so that the viewer could choose to watch the PG edit, the PG-13 edit, or the R edit.

Why didn’t this choose-your-own-rating option materialize?

During the previous decade we saw the movie industry threaten and sue companies that sold sanitized, “clean” versions of their films and theaters that showed edited versions, like Brigham Young University’s Varsity Theater used to do. In explaining why, filmmakers often cited their artistic integrity to explain why they did not wanted edited, sanitized versions of their films available, even if there was a large potential market for it. The art and the message was more important than the profits. If people weren’t willing to see their art as intended, then too bad.

Of course, the “artistic integrity” argument was always suspect. After all, the studios were already producing sanitized edits for showing on airlines and also for later broadcast on television. Why weren’t these versions made available on DVD? The filmmakers insisted that the airline and TV edits were special exceptions. The DVDs however, had to stay true to the same artistic vision as the original.

But now the cat is out of the bag. The trend toward releasing “Extended” and “Unrated” versions of films exposes the “artistic integrity” lie. All along they have been doing exactly what they claimed their “artistic integrity” didn’t allow them to do. Releasing an “Unrated” version to DVD means that the theatrical version of the film _was_ an edited, sanitized version from which they purposefully cut out “art” to sell it to a larger potential market who wouldn’t see it otherwise.

This was always the case, of course, but as long as the only version available for home viewing was exactly the same as the version shown in theaters they could maintain the illusion that their refusal to allow the distribution of “family-friendly” edits on DVD was derived from a supposed “artistic integrity” that requires the DVD version to be “true to the original.”

Recently, there was another film released to DVD that we wanted to see. We don’t stop by the local video rental anymore, we have DVDs delivered by Netflix, so when I went to Netflix to add the film to our queue, I was dismayed to find that the DVD was “Unrated” even though the theatrical release had been PG-13.

However, as I read through the listing details I discovered something hidden down the page written in the description of the “other features” of the disc: “This disc contains both the theatrical and the unrated versions of the movie”. So, I added it to the queue.

When it arrived, neither the cover sleeve nor anything printed on the DVD itself indicated that it contained anything but the “Unrated” version of the film. But we popped it into the player just to check before sending it back unwatched. We were pleasantly surprised as the DVD menu prompt clearly asked us to choose to watch either the “Theatrical” or the “Unrated” version.

So now that both “Unrated” and theatrical versions of films are not only being distributed individually on DVD and Blueray, but even being distributed on a single disc with the option to watch the “Unrated,” uncut version or the sanitized PG-13 theatrical edit of the film, there is no reason why they shouldn’t also include the option to watch a PG-13 or PG edit of the film as well, especially since these edits are often already being made for airlines or TV anyway.

Admittedly there are some films that cannot be edited in this way without becoming incoherent. But the vast majority of movies could be edited to remove profanity, nudity, and violence without doing any more damage to their coherence than is already done when editing the film for theatrical release.

The “artistic integrity” excuse has been exposed as largely false. Every theatrical version is a sanitized version compared to the unrated version of the film.

Despite resistance from the music industry and “artistic integrity” complaints from musicians, technology and demand eventually forced the music industry to allow listeners to purchase individual songs they liked and make their own playlists instead of being forced to buy a whole album mostly full of songs they didn’t want just to get the one they liked. The industry could no longer force consumers to consume what they didn’t want because it was inextricably bundled with what they did.

Likewise, I expect that technology and demand are combining against the movie industry’s ability to force-feed audiences garbage they don’t want by bundling it with what they do. The movie industry is in financial trouble already. They need the money. And since they can no longer honestly appeal to their fake “artistic integrity” they have no excuse.

It seems like a prime time to flex a little consumer muscle and demand the choose-your-own-rating option for movies.

All it would take is for some large distributor such as Wal-mart to demand that PG-13 edits be made available, either as individual discs, or bundled as a viewing option on a single disc, for every movie that wants to be sold through their stores. This isn’t as far-fetched as some people might want you to think. Wal-mart is already known for frequently refusing to stock music with Parental Advisory notices unless a “clean” version of the album is made available. They wouldn’t have to stop selling R-rated movies, they would just have to demand that R-rated movies also have a sanitized alternative, or at very least that if they are going to release an “Unrated” version that differs from the theatrical version, then they also have to release a version edited to remove profanity, nudity, and graphic violence. And if the movie makers remonstrate, they can simply point out as I have that the movies are already basically doing this with theatrical alternatives to unrated versions.

It wont happen unless consumers demand it, though. So if this is something you support, consider contacting Wal-mart and other major distributors and asking them to pressure movie makers to make clean versions of their films available on DVD and pass the word on to your friends and family to do it too.

Wal-mart Feedback Form

First, a little background:

A few years back, the Marriage and Family class at our LDS church was taught by sister Williams, who is a professional psychiatrist working with young, recently married couples at BYU. She had lots of wonderful insights, both as a marriage dynamics professional and a gospel instructor, that have stuck with me ever since.

Among the many topics she presented, one discussed studies that indicated that some parents were enforcing the virtue of “sharing” upon their children so much that their children were growing up with a deficient, warped, or even nonexistent concept of personal property. As a result, these children who lacked a sense of property were less likely to respect the property of others and more likely to steal or vandalize.

My own parents had been careful about how much we were forced to “share” our toys.

With our own children, we have tried to teach that their belongings really do belong to them, and that, while sharing is the right thing to do, we will not force them to share against their will. After all, what virtue is there in sharing unless you have the choice not to share? And if no property is ever your own to withhold, then what beneficence is there in giving?

With that, I want to recount a funny exchange between our six-year old daughter, B., and our four-year old daughter, E.:

Yesterday afternoon, I came upon the two of them arguing.

“What are you fighting about?” I asked.

“E. said that I can only use her nail polish if I let her put it on me!” B. complained.

(Despite my best intentions, our young girls somehow own their own nail polish. Heavy Sigh.)

“It’s mine, ” said E., ” I can do what ever I want with it.”

“It is hers, ” said I, “It would be nice of her to share it, but she can choose not to. Instead of getting angry, B., why don’t you try to convince her that she should should share it. Try to give her some good reasons why she should let you use it.”

“When I share my things with you, I don’t make you use them the way I want to,” said B. thoughtfully.

“This is just the way that I am made!” retorted E.

“You can choose how you want to be, E.” I encouraged, a little alarmed that our four-year old was already espousing determinism to defend her desire not to do something!

“If you wont let me put your polish on, then I’m not going to share with you anymore,” B. said calmly, falling back on a sense of justice.

“That would be a natural thing to do, and would be fair for you to do that,” I told B. “But Jesus taught us that we should be kind to people even when they are unkind to us.”

B. thought for a moment and said, “E., I will still share my things with you, even though you wont share with me.” She wanted to do what was Christian, but at the same time it was obvious that she was hoping that the show of charity would prompt her sister to respond in kind.

But her hopes were frustrated. E. obstinately refused to modify her position (after all, she is four).

The conversation shifted briefly to another topic. B. was talking about how, like air, we can’t see Jesus but He exists. Then a new approach occurred to her:

“E., you believe in Jesus don’t you?” probed B.

“Yes,” E. responded definitively.

“Well if Jesus was you, would He let me use the nail polish?” B. asked. She knew she had her.

(I made a mental note to remember to someday teach B. how to properly use the subjunctive.)

Without even a moment’s hesitation, E. responded:

“Boys don’t have nail polish!”

I laughed at the brilliant rejoinder! B. tried to rephrase her argument, but it was too late. And moments later that topic had passed as their attention moved on to other toys (partially due to my delighted laughter).

I love my kids!

There is a balance to be stricken between the freedom to choose and the extent to which morality must be enforced. The argument about where the fulcrum of that balance should lie is ongoing from the scope of the individual family all the way up to national and international law.

In one of my favorite essays of all time, Areopagitica , John Milton argued:

If every action, which is good or evil in man at ripe years, were to be under pittance and prescription and compulsion, what were virtue but a name, what praise could be then due to well-doing, what gramercy to be sober, just, or continent? Many there be that complain of divine Providence for suffering Adam to transgress; foolish tongues! When God gave him reason, he gave him freedom to choose, for reason is but choosing; he had been else a mere artificial Adam, such an Adam as he is in the motions. We ourselves esteem not of that obedience, or love, or gift, which is of force: God therefore left him free, set before him a provoking object, ever almost in his eyes; herein consisted his merit, herein the right of his reward, the praise of his abstinence. Wherefore did he create passions within us, pleasures round about us, but that these rightly tempered are the very ingredients of virtue?
.
They are not skillful considerers of human things, who imagine to remove sin by removing the matter of sin; … Though ye take from a covetous man all his treasure, he has yet one jewel left, ye cannot bereave him of his covetousness. Banish all objects of lust, shut up all youth into the severest discipline that can be exercised in any hermitage, ye cannot make them chaste, that came not hither so; such great care and wisdom is required to the right managing of this point. Suppose we could expel sin by this means; look how much we thus expel of sin, so much we expel of virtue: for the matter of them both is the same; remove that, and ye remove them both alike.

We punish the thief, burglar, and vandal. Some would also force the miser to mete out his hoard and the greedy to give alms. All choices have consequences, but some consequences should be administered by government, and others happen naturally without the imposition of authority.

How we decide which is which is a complicated question. We return to the original assertion of sister Williams and see that, as is not uncommon in the world, the formation of morality is a complex, interconnected feedback loop; We must be ever careful that by enforcing one aspect of morality that is best left to choice and consequence we do not inadvertently loosen the strictures on another aspect.

Ideally we should be encouraging children to build moral character from which moral behavior can flow, rather than to produce superficial moral behavior that will disappear as soon as the constraint of supervision is removed. Unless our children have real choices with real consequences, that cannot happen.

To do that we need the help of God, the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and the atonement of Jesus Christ.