This movie had a LOT more nudity than Slumdog Millionaire but gets a PG-13 rating?

LOL! I guarantee you every 13 year old boy that saw this is absolutely obsessed with Evan Rachel Wood now. We're not just talkin' bumity, we're talkin' boobity as well.

I watched this because everyone kept telling me "Oh go see it! It has Beatles songs so if you like The Beatles you'll love it!" If I wanted to listen to Beatles songs I can listen to any one of them on my ipod sung by the actual Beatles and not a bunch of drama geeks trying to make them into some kind of soliloquy about how they are pathetic because no one wants to hold their hand so they run away to New York. What the crap was Prudence's story or point of even being in this movie at all by the way? Just so they could put in the blatant "she came in through the bathroom window" reference? That was another thing. Some of the dumb little references to Beatles songs were so lame. I expected a drum roll each time one was delivered. Although I wasn't completely against the characters being named after different songs, I was peeved that we didn't get to hear all their theme songs. We got to hear "Hey Jude" obviously and "Dear Prudence" when they were trying to coax little miss 60's self pitying emo brat out of the bathroom or closet or whatever it was. But no "Sexy Sadie", no "Get Back" (I totally expected Jojo to "get back" to Detroit at some point), no Maxwell's Silver Hammer (I was certain that he was gonna come back from Nam and go all serial killer, especially after the "Happiness is a Warm Gun" bit), no "Dr. Robert", can't think of any others currently. And what the freak was the deal with the whole Magical Mystery Tour out to the middle of nowhere where the Mr. Kite dude randomly shows up and gets everyone stoned and naked making out under water? That whole deal was about 30 minutes that the film could easily have done without. Let's see how well I remember the movie:

Girl/Helter Skelter: decent intro, nothing special
Hold Me Tight: I kinda liked the duality of the two main characters both singing the song but I can't stand that chicks synthesized voice. If you can't sing without a synthesizer you shouldn't be singing.
All My Lovin: just felt weird
I Want To Hold Your Hand: What the crap is this? Random girl singing as if she's going to cry like a baby about not holding someone's hand and then walking into the street.
I Get By With A Little Help From My Friends: I don't dance around like a ballerina with my dudes. These guys are flamers.
It Won't Be Long: fit well with the story, again don't like the synthesizer girl
Falling: The whole bowling alley dance-a-thon reminded me too much of Grease 2, I guess that may be what they were going for. This version doesn't even come close to the original though.
Let It Be: This was one of the few that I really liked. The gospel choir rendition was pretty good. I didn't quite understand the black kid singing and then being in the coffin. I guess he died in the riot? He was Jojo's motivation to run away to New York. Other than that don't know what his deal was.
Come Together: This was another well presented song. I liked the singer although I'll admit I'm not sure who it was. EDIT: Just looked it up and that is Joe Cocker. NO WONDER! He has already proved that he can own Beatle's songs. I mean be honest did you hear the Joe Cocker version of Get By With a Little Help first or the Beatle's version? If you're around my age and remember the Wonder Years then the answer will be Joe Cocker version. This is what happens when you get professionals to sing the songs instead of random wanna be singer/actors. That's why when The Who made Tommy they got Elton John and Tina Turner and Eric Clapton and other talented musicians to come be the actors and perform the songs. So that it wouldn't suck.
Why Don't We Do It In The Road: Sadie singing some of these songs made them weaker to me. Some were better but this was not one of those.
If I Fell: I really hated the way this song was presented. It makes it seem a lot more serious and sappy than I believe it was ever intended to be.
I Want You So Bad: Stupid. Yes that evil military is making all those innocent young men do terrible things. We should let everyone frolic in the flowers instead while terrorists massacre us. It especially bugged me that the uniforms that the military guys in this were wearing looked more like Nazi uniforms without a swastika symbol than an actual U.S. military uniform. And then the whole carrying the statue of liberty while singing She's So Heavy? Give me a break. Oh and I'm sure you really have to do your interview in your underwear. This was definitely made by lying hippies. Then finishing off with pathetic Prudence whining about not her pathetic existence again. At least her version kept the song in the correct context.
Dear Prudence: Love the song, hate this stupid character.
I Am Walrus: Sung by Bono. That is a plus. Still didn't really enjoy it as much as the original though.
Being For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite: Well maybe if it had been sung I could critique the song. Why was this in the movie and who the hell is that weirdo they got to speak it.
Because: I love the original and this version wasn't bad at all. I really didn't get the random naked floating bums making out underwater though... I guess they all just got really high at the Dr. Robert party and everything from there until they get back to New York is a total blur.
Something: Meh. Not bad but not great.
Oh Darlin: The guitar player needed to not take the song lyrics personally LOL. Not a great version of this song. Mainly because he was sabotaging it though. So it was bad on purpose.
Strawberry Fields: I guess this was a tribute to John Lennon's war film? I seem to remember something about him writing this song for a war film he was in or something.
Revolution: Fit very well into the story. The ending was kind of weird with his singing as he was getting thrown out.
While My Guitar Gently Weeps: Original is MUCH better than this. Boring.
Across The Universe/Helter Skelter medley: Why didn't they have Bono sing Helter Skelter? And why is it always a part of another song in this film? And what was with the dancing monks on the other subway car? You don't have to be a monk to say Jai Guru Deva Ohm. I just said it and I'm a white christian.
Happiness Is A Warm Gun: I hated this version of the song. The only good part was the hot nurses. Still not understanding why having some crazy person have a seizure in the middle of a song is considered "dancing" to these people.
A Day In The Life (guitar solo): This actually worked really well. I liked it.
Blackbird: What did this have to do with anything? Producers: We gotta have Blackbird in there somewhere. Lets just randomly stick it in right here.
Hey Jude: Saw this one coming from about 600 miles away. I guess it had to be done. Seemed a little shorter than the original though. I guess that is a good thing.
Don't Let Me Down: I'm pretty sure they got the lyrics wrong on this. I don't really know how I feel about the whole rooftop concert thing either. You are not the Beatles and you don't even come close to comparing yourself with them. Maybe I'm too harsh, they had to end the movie someway I guess and this was as good as any.
All You Need Is Love: How special.

Rating out of 10 I give this movie a 3. It has some decent enough moments but as a movie it is extremely sporadic and hard to figure out the storyline at times and there are too many non-essential elements that make the movie a lot longer than it needed to be to tell the story. Musically, there are a couple good interpretations of Beatles songs but for the most part I prefer nonproxy music.

Message of this movie: When life gives you lemons, it takes them away from you before you can make lemonade and squeezes them into your gaping wound.

SPOILER ALERT!

The tag line on the poster you see here is a lie and false advertising. Lines divided them yes. But as I am about to tell you the ending of the movie so don't keep reading if you don't want to know!!! We see in the movie that hope didn't exactly unite anyone. In fact if anything united anyone it was despair. The story can be summed up with the following... So naive german kid meets concentration camp kid and decides he wants to go live with in the concentration camp because he sees a propaganda film saying they play sports and eat cake all day. So German kid goes in with Jewish kid and they get routinely ushered to the gas chamber and killed. The End. What a wonderful message of hope! (SARCASM AHEM!)

I'm usually a sucker for tragedies, but occasionally I see one that just rubs me the wrong way and instead of feeling reflective or inspired by the story I leave just peeved off that the director/writer/whatever dare write a story where something terrible happens to someone that doesn't deserve it. This is one of those. It doesn't make any point other than sometimes really terrible things happen and there's not much you can do about it. Well I don't go to see movies to learn that. I watch the news to learn that. A tragedy is supposed to make the audience see the mistakes of the tragic hero and say to themselves "man what a terrible thing, I will never make those mistakes myself". Either that or the hero sacrifices himself to save someone else. I mean don't get me wrong. I understand that this is a film about a concentration camp in the middle of the holocaust and it is going to be a sad movie. That is not what I am talking about. I'm talking about the fact that there isn't really any hero in the movie at all other than the naive little boy who gets himself killed because his parents and country lied to him about what was really going on in the camp. OK we already know that the Nazis were bad and should be ashamed of what they did. Do we really need a story that exploits that point? I don't know. Maybe I'm the one being naive. Maybe I'm wrong. But honestly at this point I will probably noy see this movie again and I will be telling certain people I know who don't even like the kinds of tragedies that I like to avoid this movie.

Absolutely loved it. That is my final answer.

I'm writing this review before I read all of the "I hated it so apparently I'm unique because I hate anything that's popular" threads, because everytime I read those first I end up defending the movie and feel like I'm writing a personal message to those people instead of just saying why I did or did not like the movie. So here goes.

I loved Slumdog Millionaire. I am still somewhat baffled over the R rating. First of all as far as language goes I don't remember one single use of the F word although apparently it was used like twice. Which still shouldn't make it rated R because I've seen quite a few PG-13 movies that have used the F word twice or more. I do remember a couple of times hearing the S word. But hey its a movie. Lots of movies have the S word. Nudity/Sex: well you see a little kids bum and there's a scene where it is implied that a young girl is coerced into sleeping with a young boy. Ok well, I see that on the news everytime a kiddie porn ring is busted. They didn't show anything. They just imply that it happened. Blood/Violence: there is some violence and some pretty intense scenes but there is literally no blood or gore. You see people get shot and hit in the head with a crowbar and have acid poured into their eyes but you don't actually see any of the gore. Intense yes. Take a child to see it no. But I do remember watching an episode or 60 of 24 where Jack Bauer more than implies that he killed some dude by biting his jugular vein. I mean come on. Point = TV shows are more intense than this. Drugs/Alcohol etc. again TV is worse or equal to what was seen in this movie. I mean couldn't they have just put a Parental Discretion is advised instead of slapping an R rating on there just because it was made by Danny Boyle?

Wow. Ok rating rant over. The movie is a very charming story about two young brothers living in the slums of India who lose their mother and are forced to fend for themselves. It is also a love story about one of the brother's quest to reunite with a girl they meet who also has no parents. The way the story is told is interesting. We get to see the main character Jamal on the Indian version of the show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire answering all kinds of questions and at the same time he explaining how he knew the answers to the questions to a police chief who is trying to get him to confess to cheating. Each question leads to a flashback which is where the main story comes in. It is a very creative story and I thought very well crafted. While the actual elements are quite text book, (hero starts at home, goes on a quest, has adventures and whatnot, rescues the princess from the evil dragon, etc. whatever) but since when is that kind of a story not welcome? I like stories with happy endings. I don't think there is any hidden political agenda in the movie. I don't think Danny Boyle is naive or pompous or trying to talk down to anyone. I think he just wanted to tell an interesting engaging story about three very likeable characters who are trying to deal with life, but in a very different setting than a lot of people are used to. Its kind of like Oliver Twist meets Homer's Odyssey meets [insert love story here] in India. I knew what the 20 million rupee question was going to be from the second he gets whacked over the head with the book in the beginning by the way, but the predictability of the movie doesn't take away from its enjoyment because it doesn't try to present itself as a movie that trying to keep you guessing or surprise you with intricate plot twists.

Great there I go. I haven't even read the hater's posts yet and I'm still defending the show based on what I'm sure they are all saying. Well whatever. I give the movie a 10. It deserved Best Picture of 2008.

DJ Earworm Mashups

So I found out about this guy that does song remix/mash-ups and posts them for free on his site. I highly recommend that anyone who likes music (especially dance music but not limited to) go check out his site and download some songs. The link is http://djearworm.com/. I especially enjoy "Gimme Freaks" (Rolling Stones "Gimme Shelter" and Moguai & Tocadisco "Freaks"), "Intergalactic Human" (Beastie Boys "Intergalactic" and Daft Punk "Human After All"), "Together As One" (U2 "One", Beatles "Come Together", Diana Ross "Someday We'll Be Together", and Mariah Carey "We Belong Together", yeah...), "No One Takes Your Freedom" (Scissor Sisters "Take Your Mama Out", Beatles "For No One", George Michael "Freedom '90", and Aretha Franklin "Think (Freedom)"), "Lemon Lucy" (Elton John "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds (Beatles cover)" and Lemon Jelly "Come"), and so many others. Now typically I HATE Hip Hop type music that rips off old songs and turns them into a rap song with a bunch of hoes dancing around in gold bikinis and crap but that is not what this is at all. Nothing has been done to violate the original songs in anyway. I mean some of these songs actually take individual songs that I hate and make me love them in context of the mash-up! If you like techno or electronica type music at all I'm pretty sure you'll like this (think Moby... kind of).

No Line On The Horizon review

I'll begin by saying that in the past couple years, after the How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb hype died out and U2 began to just show up occasionally to do a duet with Green Day or Mary J. Blige, I have been less impressed with some of the new songs. "The Saints Are Coming" was a joke of a song that was only good to raise money for Hurricane Katrina victims from mindless fans like me who bought it anyway. And "Windows in the Skies" or whatever it was called was alright but I honestly haven't listened to it since I bought the album of 18 songs that I already have on four other U2 compilation cds. And then there was U23D which was an awesome cinematic experience, but musically was about as boring as any other U2 featured documentary since 2003 has been (which basically means it was 90% songs that I can hear at any time of the day or night on the radio instead of some of the great classic songs that you don't often hear live anymore). Then, about a month or so ago the new single was released. Get On Your Boots gave me flashbacks to the first time I heard the song Vertigo. I liked the excitement I felt when hearing it but I didn't like the song at all. Kind of lame, nothing special, etc. Needless to say, I bought this album, mind you as a HUGE U2 fan, but with somewhat low expectations and even some hesitation and anxiety that my days as a fan of all and everything U2 might be at an end.

I am indeed happy to say that this is not the case :)

No Line On The Horizon, after one listen, has already proven itself to me as a good album. I don't know at this point whether it will become a favorite but I will say that with HTDAAB and ATYCLB, other than a couple songs, I only pretended to love them in the beginning before they slowly grew on me as an album. The difference with NLOTH is that each and every song fits prefectly into place in context of the album. HTDAAB was an incredible album in this manner but the difference between it and NLOTH is that I still hate the song Vertigo and I do not think it belongs on that or anyother album for that matter. In contrast, Get On Your Boots fits perfectly on NLOTH in context of the album and I actually find myself enjoying the song.

Enough comparison. As a standalone album, ignoring this band's amazing musical history, NLOTH is a very good album with enough catchy songs that I immediately enjoy. Specifically I enjoy the songs "Magnificent", "White As Snow", and "Breathe". There were others but those are the three that I remember for certain after just one listen that I especially enjoyed. Unfortunately I don't think the album measures up to the status of Achtung Baby or Joshua Tree or even Pop for that matter*. And with that, my rating for NLOTH is 4/5 stars.

*=Unlike a large majority of people, I really like the album Pop, I give it 5 out of 5 stars. Therefore me thinking Pop is better than NLOTH is not a commentary on NLOTH being so low in quality that it doesn't even match up to Pop.

My Review of Seven Pounds. Best movie I've seen in years ***Spoilers***

This movie is definitely not one of those you want to go see if you don't like "depressing" movies. I put quotes there because I know a lot of people who use that classification for any movie that is specifically designed to make you feel sober and reflective at the end. They usually tend to have bittersweet endings. I think its interesting that so many people take this attitude and refuse to go see these types of movies yet you look at the types of shows that have lasted through the ages and a LOT of them are tragedies. Oedipus Rex, Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, Citizen Kane, etc. My point I guess is that just because the hero dies doesn't mean its a bad movie. In fact it usually drives the point home to the audience. I have nothing against happy endings but sometimes its nice to see a show that really makes me reflect on my own life and inspire me to want to be better. Well "Seven Pounds" is just that type of show.

The show is about a man who spends the last few weeks of his life searching for deserving beneficiaries of his vital organs. His eyes, his heart, his liver, bone marrow, even his beach house. There are a number of story lines but the two prominent ones are those of Ezra, a blind vegan jewish meat salesman, and Emily, a single woman with a big dog who suffers from heart troubles and has a rare blood type. We follow Ben Thomas on his quest for redemption and watch him struggle, especially after he falls in love with Emily and is forced with the decision of staying alive in order to be with her or go through with hi plan and save her life.

The movie gives you only enough information along the way so that you don't figure out exactly what circumstances have led Ben to make the decision to do what he does until the end of the movie when the beneficiaries find out themselves. This method of writing seems to make me as a viewer among one of the beneficiaries as well. At first I am unsure what to think of him when he very harshly insults the blind call center employee and goes around doing IRS audits of various individuals with medical problems. As we learn more we soon find out that he is not an IRS agent and is only interested in finding people to help.

On a personal note, I have had a number of people close to me pass away and have their organs donated, the closest being my sister. The final scene in which Emily and Ezra meet was extremely powerful for me as I couldn't help putting myself in Emily's place and react to seeing the eyes of someone I dearly love through someone else. Seven Pounds is a must see in my book and I give it a 10 out of 10.

Commonwealth and the Latter Day Saints

by Brandon Burrup

Introduction:
How much are religious beliefs and political beliefs interlinked? Philosophers throughout the ages have suggested many ideas about how man should govern himself and how governments should rule over men; however, none of these philosophers have been able to come up with a system that is without flaw. One such philosopher is Thomas Hobbes who wrote extensively on these topics in his book Leviathan. In the second part of this book, entitled Commonwealth, Hobbes defines a system of government in which a group of men make a covenant with each other to submit their wills to a sovereign ruler who acts as a figure of their collective will. When compared with the Latter Day Saint (LDS) church’s beliefs, there are similarities to Hobbes and there are differences. This essay will attempt to compare LDS views of government to those found in Hobbes’ writings by discussing first the differences, next the similarities, and the evidence of Hobbes’ theories in LDS scripture.

Differences:
The first thing one must understand when discussing government and the LDS people is that religion and politics are two different things, whereas Hobbes appears to refer to them synonymously. Hobbes’ definition of a commonwealth is:

“…when a multitude of men do agree, and covenant, every one with every one, that to whatsoever man, or assembly of men, shall be given by the major part the right to present the person of them all, that is to say, to be their representative; every one, as well he that voted for it as he that voted against it, shall authorize all the actions and judgements of that man, or assembly of men, in the same manner as if they were his own, to the end to live peaceably amongst themselves, and be protected against other men.” (Hobbes, Ch 18 para 1)

This is very different from the way the U.S government is run and the way the LDS believe it should be. Hobbes’ definition seems to allow for a way into a commonwealth but no way out other than death.

He also demonstrates that he believes that a sovereign receives the authority of God to rule over those in the commonwealth. This is shown in his statement that a sovereign becomes a “mortal god, under that immortal God” and also in what he says about men who try to break the covenant they enter into under commonwealth under the argument that they have a higher covenant with God. In that regard he states:

“And whereas some men have pretended for their disobedience to their sovereign a new covenant, made, not with men but with God, this also is unjust: for there is no covenant with God but by mediation of somebody that representeth God's person, which none doth but God's lieutenant who hath the sovereignty under God.” (Hobbes, Ch 18 para 3)

This shows that he is of the opinion that one receives divine authority through popular consent.

Compare these ideas to what the LDS scriptures and the Articles of Faith state about civil government. The twelfth article of faith states, “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” (Articles of Faith 1.12) This does not appear to be completely contradictory to Hobbes’ views, but if we look a little deeper we can see a distinct difference. In Doctrine and Covenants section 134, Joseph Smith clearly outlines the church’s perspective on what a temporal government should do. Outlined in the section heading are the following points: governments should preserve freedom of conscience and worship, all men should uphold their governments and owe respect and deference to the law, religious societies should not exercise civil powers, and men are justified in defending themselves and their property (D&C 134). These show that the LDS church believes in supporting and sustaining civil government but at the same time reserve the right to preserve personal property. This implies that we should support leaders but not fully submit to them.

Verse 9 of this section shows how the LDS perspective of the authority of civil government is different from Hobbes’. It reads:

“We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.” (D&C 134.9)

This shows clearly that the LDS do not believe that religion should be a part of civil government. This includes the act of covenanting to uphold a leader and also the idea that by so covenanting we are bestowing not just our will but the will of God as well to that leader. In respect to divine authority the LDS belief is best summarized through the fifth article of faith which says that men only receive divine authority by the laying on of hands by those who are already in authority (Articles of Faith 1.5).

There is also evidence that the LDS do not agree with Hobbes’ idea of having a sole leader over the people. In Mosiah chapter 29, King Mosiah explains to his subjects the reason why it is not fit for a king to rule over the people. He tells them that if it were possible to always have just men rule over them, then it would be good to have a king, but because kings are not always righteous it is better to be ruled by the voice of the people. Hobbes has the right idea when he says that it is necessary that a sovereign be just and truly represent the will of the people, but the problem with this idea is, as Mosiah says, that the sovereign is not always just. If the sovereign is not just then the people are stuck with him according to Hobbes, because they have made a covenant to uphold him. We see that Hobbes and Mosiah follow a similar thought process, but come to different conclusions.

Similarities:
There are some LDS beliefs that are similar to Hobbes’ in the way the LDS church is governed and the relationship church members have with God and with their leaders. In short it would appear that Hobbes’ ideas of civil government are best applied to the way the LDS church is run.

Hobbes outlines the importance of covenants in speaking about the rights of a sovereign. He says that by joining together under a covenant, it is the right of the sovereign to punish them if they should break their part of the covenant and try to leave. This same idea is seen in the church. Once one goes through the covenants and ordinances to become a member, if they then leave the church and are unfaithful to those covenants, their punishment will be far greater than it would have been had they not entered into the covenant in the first place. (Hobbes, Ch 18 para 4)

Another idea of Hobbes’ that seems to reflect LDS doctrine is the nature of man. Hobbes lists our natural passions as “partiality, pride, revenge, and the like.” Hobbes believes that the natural man will serve himself and no one else. In the Book of Mormon, the natural man is described as an enemy to God. Hobbes says that the only way to put off natural tendencies is for us to covenant into a commonwealth under a sovereign power. Mosiah urges us to put off the natural man by making a covenant to submit our will to God. (Mosiah 3.19) This underlines the main difference between Hobbes’ ideas and LDS doctrine. The LDS believe in Hobbes’ theories as applied to their relationship with divine authority and God, but they do not apply it to civil government as Hobbes does.

Hobbes’ Theories in the Book of Mormon:
The Book of Mormon has many examples of ideas that come up in Hobbes’ writings. It is interesting to see how these philosophies were a part of the culture and political ideology of many groups in the Book of Mormon and are even important doctrines of the ancient church.

One example is in Alma chapter 54. The king of the Lamanites speaks to Moroni who is a captain of the Nephites, and tells him that Moroni’s fathers robbed his fathers of their right to the government and for this reason they are at war. (Alma 54.17-18) This shows the importance that the Lamanites gave to the rights of sovereignty just as Hobbes explores in his writings. Hobbes says that the sovereignty has the right to wage war against any who would try to take its power. (Hobbes, Ch 18 para 4) The Lamanites use this idea to justify their own war.

Later on in 3 Nephi, we see how the disintegration of government leads back to a state that Hobbes describes before the commonwealth. Notice the similarity between the following passages—

Passage 1: “And in all places, where men have lived by small families, to rob and spoil one another has been a trade, and so far from being reputed against the law of nature that the greater spoils they gained, the greater was their honour; and men observed no other laws therein but the laws of honour; that is, to abstain from cruelty, leaving to men their lives and instruments of husbandry. And as small families did then; so now do cities and kingdoms, which are but greater families (for their own security), enlarge their dominions upon all pretences of danger, and fear of invasion, or assistance that may be given to invaders; endeavour as much as they can to subdue or weaken their neighbours by open force, and secret arts, for want of other caution, justly; and are remembered for it in after ages with honour.” (Hobbes, Ch 17 para 1)

Passage 2: “And the people were divided one against another; and they did separate one from another into tribes, every man according to his family and his kindred and friends; and thus they did destroy the government of the land.
And it came to pass in the thirty and first year that they were divided into tribes, every man according to his family, kindred and friends; nevertheless they had come to an agreement that they would not go to war one with another; but they were not united as to their laws, and their manner of government, for they were established according to the minds of those who were their chiefs and their leaders. But they did establish very strict laws that one tribe should not trespass against another, insomuch that in some degree they had peace in the land...” (3 Nephi 7.14)

The similarity is uncanny. In Hobbes statement he describes how, without a commonwealth, men work as families or groups to protect themselves and the passage in 3 Nephi shows how this actually occurred in Nephite history.

Conclusion:
Hobbes and Mosiah are an interesting pair to compare. Both agree that the natural man is self serving and fights against good principles. Both understand that the only way to overcome these natural tendencies is to enter into a covenant with a sovereign ruler. Both also can see the benefits of having just rulers over people who serve them according to the laws of God. Both believe in the importance of honoring covenants. The difference between Hobbes and Mosiah is that Mosiah’s beliefs in these regards are applied toward man’s relationship with God and not a civil leader. In this sense the LDS church is quite different from Hobbes while agreeing with his underlying principles as applied to religion.

for further reference:
LDS Scriptures
Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes