Is Rock 'n' Roll Evil? Pt.2

I received a provocative comment when I wrote the first installment of "Is Rock 'n' Roll Evil?" from Lily. She is an intelligent Harvard Student and I enjoy her insight in the "dog blog" even though I don't agree with her. I believe that she is a student of philosophy up there, but she may have to correct me on that one. Instead of responding in a comment, I thought I'd do a second installment and respond to some of her observations and questions.
First, Lily asked me if my remedy for the negative effects of these forms of entertainment would include isolating ourselves? I believe that the prophets have clearly stated that we should not isolate from the world, else we can do no good in it. I think there are certainly forms of entertainment that are not worth an ounce of our time and should be totally shunned (pornography, certain music or movies with extreme images of hate, violence and sex, etc.). We should live in the world and try to find the beauty in it and interact with others, but shouldn't be part of the world, meaning we shouldn't partake of things that hurt us.
I think Lily's best point and hardest to argue is that the "lifestyle portrayed by rock'n'rollers is a lot of the time whimsical and self-indulgent. But that (my argument) is actually far too broad a generalisation." I actually do agree with her that I made an overly broad generalisation on this point. I don't believe that all their messages are inherently evil. I believe in the 13th article of faith (one of the 13 brief summaries of our religion) "if there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things." Some of this music, particularly the BEATLES is very beautiful and is definitely praiseworthy in many respect, though not all. I admire them as songwriters and musicians and believe that their music will transcend time. Also, I agree rock music doesn't necessarily translate into "bad acts". I know that Bono and others do much for the cause of humanity, which is religion in its truest sense. However, this much I do know and feel comfortable in boldly proclaiming, these men are fallible and many of their theories and philosophies are contrary to the teachings of the Lord, Jesus Christ and these philosophies are embraced by many who listen as if it is the unqualified truth without disecting the words to discover the their real meaning.
Once, I had a philosophy professor at Utah Valley State say that the best philosophers in the world are Rock'n'Roll artists and I had to think about that for a second. They do tell us a lot of truths, but if you get beneath the surface is it sound philosophy? The example Lily used was Lennon's "imagine". Lennon says a lot of good things in this song. Imagine no poverty and no riches, but equality. This is most definitely a gospel principle, but look a little closer to what he's telling us to do. Imagine "no hell below us above us only sky." He wants us to believe there is no consequence for sin and no need to have faith in Jesus Christ. Most the song talks about good things, like sharing the world. But we need to be mindful of what we call good. Many musicians sing about "love", but what do they mean, love with total selflessness or lusty disregard for the welfare and salvation of others? They sing about "happiness", but do they mean a fleeting enjoyment that leaves someone ashamed, empty and separated from God or do they mean the joy that is promised as we follow true principles, humble ourselves and believe in Christ?
Lily argues that "people have a religious experience and internalise things from listening and repetion in a "daze". I think here she is implying that religious people have concepts drilled into them by blind worship and kind of a brainwashing, if I'm reading her argument correctly. She goes on to say that "religious experience comes from the message (that strikes true internally), and is then manifested, if you will (or if you so choose, in that sort of "chanting". I believe here she is commenting on my depiction of the young teen listening to rap and walking around "chanting" in what I referred to as a daze.
To address the first part of her comment, I had to think about that comment for a little bit. Here's some of the thoughts that I have on this. As we are all the sons and daughters of a loving Heavenly parentage, it is certainly true that we all have a divine heritage. As such we possess certain qualities. One of these qualities is that we all feel the pin-prick in our hearts when truth is presented. We all have in us a desire to return to God. It makes sense that he provides a method that we can know how(it is given to all men to know right from wrong and good from evil). Sometimes, however, we are all confused (I used to worship the beatles and put way too much stock in what they sang about) when those truths are interspersed with half truths or deception (intentional or unintentional). The Lord does not want or expect us to blindly follow in a "daze" and learn by vain repetition, but to supplement our learning with frequent prayer asking for help to know truth from fiction. He asks us in James "if any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, which giveth liberally and upbraideth not." The gospel is infinitely more powerful than the precepts of men, but is in no way as loud and repetitious as the theories of men that we see on TV, in the movies, in song, in school, by our friends, on the Internet, etc. I do agree with Lily though, that we shouldn't walk around in any kind of a "daze", whether religiously or irreligious. We should closely examine these things for ourselves, when we truly consider what most musicians are telling us, we can discover for ourselves how truly shallow their meaning is and what a dead end their theories lead us to.