Epidemic Of Pornography Foretold In D&c 45:31

[ttribe]

If you're referring to the memo, I believe it was a letter read in Sacrament meeting, and reiterated with the latest hubbub over Elder Packer's recent remarks in a F&T meeting:

While I understand the danger of members of the Church listening to the ideas and claims of non-leaders, I find it hilarious that we are now at the point that we are being told not to listen to the leaders themselves unless certain preconditions are met.

That's a bit of an oversimplification, don't you think?

[baddonkey]

I noticed from my recently closed poll thread on pornography that only about 18% of the people who responded viewed it. That is significanly lower than 50%. Maybe Bishops should recommend to men who have this problem to post on MADB.

I wonder why this thread is still open?

[ttribe]

I noticed from my recently closed poll thread on pornography that only about 18% of the people who responded viewed it. That is significanly lower than 50%. Maybe Bishops should recommend to men who have this problem to post on MADB.

I wonder why this thread is still open?

Gee I can't imagine...maybe because no one is asking for a confession in this thread?

[Joseph Antley]

How would you know? Do you check a majority of LDS folks internet history for porn?

If you read my post closely enough, you'd see the words "I'm guessing" and "I think".

If you're referring to the memo, I believe it was a letter read in Sacrament meeting, and reiterated with the latest hubbub over Elder Packer's recent remarks in a F&T meeting:

According to the memo it shouldn't be a problem then since he said that he had obtained President Hinckley's permission to use his quote.

Maybe I'm off-base, but it feels like you guys are just fishing to find faults with LDS.

[William James]

Last night I attended a fireside at BYU by Mark Kastleman, one of the co-founders of Candeo and the author of several books. What really struck me was something Kastleman said President Gordon B. Hinckley said at a training meeting for mission presidents. He said that President Hinckley said that the the "overflowing scourge" and "desolating sickness" prophesied of in D&C 45:31 is pornography in the modern world.

"And there shall be men standing in that generation, that shall not pass until they shall see an overflowing scourge; for a desolating sickness shall cover the land. But my disciples shall stand in holy places, and shall not be moved" (D&C 45:31-32).

I found this very interesting.

This interpretation of Joseph Smith's prophecy, in my view, highlights once again the church's obsession with perceived sexual sin as being so much worse than so many other sins. Since the literal prophecy doesn't seem to have come true yet (at least not in geographic areas with large LDS populations), GBH I think wanted to give the scripture meaning for us, and his personal hatred of just about anything sexual fit right in perfectly to form this interpretation.

Perhaps I'm just naiive, but I am just not seeing how pornography (at least mainstream forms of sexually-oriented media) are an overflowing scourge or desolating sickness. One effect they are having, however, is the tendency to bring out in the open the thoughts that people are already having privately, and getting it out in the open is threatening to challenge what we have been raised in the church to think about chastity and the rationale for the church's puritannical brand of it. To the extent that the church has refused to recognize empirical data on human sexuality, I imagine some members have experienced severe challenges to their testimonies in trying to reconcile the ideals the church espouses and the reality in which they find themselves.

[ttribe]

This interpretation of Joseph Smith's prophecy, in my view, highlights once again the church's obsession with perceived sexual sin as being so much worse than so many other sins. Since the literal prophecy doesn't seem to have come true yet (at least not in geographic areas with large LDS populations), GBH I think wanted to give the scripture meaning for us, and his personal hatred of just about anything sexual fit right in perfectly to form this interpretation.

What?! What basis do you have for stating that President Hinckley had a "personal hatred of just about anything sexual"? Other than your irresponsible speculation, that is.

[cinepro]

According to the memo it shouldn't be a problem then since he said that he had obtained President Hinckley's permission to use his quote.

And who did you get permission from?

[Joseph Antley]

This interpretation of Joseph Smith's prophecy, in my view, highlights once again the church's obsession with perceived sexual sin as being so much worse than so many other sins. Since the literal prophecy doesn't seem to have come true yet (at least not in geographic areas with large LDS populations), GBH I think wanted to give the scripture meaning for us, and his personal hatred of just about anything sexual fit right in perfectly to form this interpretation.

Why do you think President Hinckley had a "personal hatred" of anything sexual? What's your justification for that? That is an extremely odd view, since (I hope I'm not pushing the forum rules) sexuality is an intricate part of the LDS faith, as opposed to the Catholic faith who hallow celibacy.

Perhaps I'm just naiive, but I am just not seeing how pornography (at least mainstream forms of sexually-oriented media) are an overflowing scourge or desolating sickness.

I would guess that perhaps you are a little naive. I cannot think of a more appropriate phrase to describe it than a "desolating sickness".

To the extent that the church has refused to recognize empirical data on human sexuality

What empirical data on human sexuality is the Church ignoring?

And who did you get permission from?

Agh, yeh got me.

(Actually, interesting note about this, I believe Brother Kastleman has written about President Hinckley's interpretation of this verse in one his books.)

[ttribe]

What?! What basis do you have for stating that President Hinckley had a "personal hatred of just about anything sexual"? Other than your irresponsible speculation, that is.

William James - I would still like an answer to my question.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Why Pornography can be deemed Immoral by the Church without specifically targeting it:

1. The LDS church teaches the law of Chastity, a part of which involves only having sexual relations with someone to whom you are legally and lawfully wed. The vast majority of porn is performed by people who are not married. Thus, it's production (for the most part) strikes out easily against orthodox Christian beliefs and LDS beliefs.

2. "Whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her..." This is a bit tricky because of semantics and actual "first-hand" attestations of the ability to not lust over the people viewed. I actually believe that a few people have this ability if it is viewed in certain circumstances. However, from the many many many hundreds of men I know and have heard talk about their porn habits, the "unlustful" ones would have to be such a minority that it makes little sense to risk being one of the few.

3. Multiple studies have shown over and over that the earlier one views porn, the more likely you are to lose your virginity at an early age. Some of course find nothing wrong with this even though it is always outside the bounds of marriage. It may be "natural", but since the scriptures frequently speak about overcoming the natural man, we can hardly be faulted for our view.

Problems and "creative" exceptions that have arisen:

1. I was reading an article a few months back about a group that was promoting "Christian" pornography. Apparently, all couples shown have to be married and heterosexual. Additionally, no depictions of sex outside of marriage are allowed, it all has to promote intimacy within marriage. While on the surface this makes some sense and addresses Issue 1 and 3 from above, it still does not address Issue 2. No amount of "proper" porn could ever resolve that. This same site also encouraged other forms of sex to be taught (oral, ****, etc.) to youth as alternatives to vaginal (I am being strictly scientific in my explanations, so this is clinical, not potty talk) sex under the justification that you are thus still a "virgin" and morally chaste, so it's a good way to save yourself from marriage. I think almost all of us can agree that this reasoning is absolutely and utterly ridiculous. Maybe I'm throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but anyone who has that junk in their logic is not to be given much credence in other related issues.

2. "Medical" porn. This is a reality, and I am in fact ambiguous on this. It is well attested in the Sexual Therapist communities that porn, of a certain variety and used in very limited circumstances, can be beneficial to certain spousal issues. Where all else has failed, "homework" may be assigned to a couple experiencing certain rare problems. It is also used for certain medical tests regarding bloodfow and such for woman. As has been previously discussed here before, LDS Family Services prescribed and used porn for issues dealing with homosexual mentalities. Hence, at least on a clinical level both in and out of the church, it can be used as a targeted tool. That said, I can't think of any (in the LDS field) that would ever encourage a "self-prescription" of porn by anyone. That would be like someone self-medicating themselves with morphine because someone they know has had it prescribed by a physician. Additionally, even if medically one had to use morphine or some such addictive substance, it does not mean that you have a free ride to keep taking it your whole life. Like many of the most dangerous substances doctors prescribe, porn is addictive and the addiction can ruin your entire life. Playing with it is playing with fire. I personally think there is a chance that for medical (psychological) purposes it can be used, but I am not certain and a reasonable case can be made the other way.

3. "Home" porn. Between husband and wife, none else. I see no problem with this except of excessiveness. I distinctly recall a general authority several years ago speaking in General Conference about the dangers of certain sexual habits. I wish I could find it, but have had a hard time doing so. Perhaps someone else here can find it because it would be a good reference. The general authority basically stated, among other things, that some have become addicted to watching themselves rather than focusing on their spouse. Sexual relations in the bounds of marriage are to be a deeper way to connect with each other, not for the personal and sole gratification of the self.

So..... there we go. Three really really really good reasons (in my view) that porn is automatically immoral no matter what some groups state regarding sexual health. Most of them do not take into account spiritual health. Additionally, each of the three "creative" exceptions come with such high danger levels that one should really consider the extreme dangers (spiritually speaking) that you will most likely find yourself in. Bottom line: Avoid it.

Of course, if you don't believe in a God who cares about morality, this is meaningless. Of course, then your arguments against it are meaningless to us who do believe in a moral God.

[William James]

What?! What basis do you have for stating that President Hinckley had a "personal hatred of just about anything sexual"? Other than your irresponsible speculation, that is.

Ttribe:

Sorry it has taken so long to get back with you. This is a complicated subject, and unfortunately, it seems most posters on this board have a little more time to devote to getting in the last word than I do. I admit that I like everyone else on the planet, do not have the ability to step inside GBH's brain and tell you exactly for sure what he is thinking. All I can go on is circumstantial evidence.

What I can do is summarize and provide a link that points you in the direction of some of the reasons for my view. In brief summary, the world of sexuality (not just sex) consists of a great deal more that just "wholesome" intercourse between man and wife. GBH is part of a long tradition of extremely restrictive views on the expression of sexuality, which appears to me to have arisen out of his own paranoia (and the paranoia of others who bought into and promulgated the idea that sex not for procreative purposes within marriage is somehow corrupting. Granted, GBH did appear to espouse the view that even non-procreative sex was a legitimate way for married couples to bond, but even that had dampers thrown on it (GBH supported the first presidency letter aimed at discouraging/prohibitting even intra-marriage oral sex). As for the actions of other church leaders, i.e., Mark E. Peterson, I believe it can fairly be said that GBH never did anything to public repudiate or criticize their comments. Here's the link:

http://www.i4m.com/think/sexuality/

The page is not a completely accurate reflection of all my views, but it does a great deal, I think, to explain why the LDS faith's model of sex is not realistic and tends to have the effect of stifling or killing off our sexuality.

I suppose that you will nevertheless disagree with my conclusions and will imagine that it is perfectly reasonably and healthy to follow the conservative tradition of sex as something that should not be carnal or sensual, but that in order for it to be "guilt-free" we have to get God involved in the bedroom.

[ttribe]

Ttribe:

Sorry it has taken so long to get back with you. This is a complicated subject, and unfortunately, it seems most posters on this board have a little more time to devote to getting in the last word than I do. I admit that I like everyone else on the planet, do not have the ability to step inside GBH's brain and tell you exactly for sure what he is thinking. All I can go on is circumstantial evidence.

What I can do is summarize and provide a link that points you in the direction of some of the reasons for my view. In brief summary, the world of sexuality (not just sex) consists of a great deal more that just "wholesome" intercourse between man and wife. GBH is part of a long tradition of extremely restrictive views on the expression of sexuality, which appears to me to have arisen out of his own paranoia (and the paranoia of others who bought into and promulgated the idea that sex not for procreative purposes within marriage is somehow corrupting. Granted, GBH did appear to espouse the view that even non-procreative sex was a legitimate way for married couples to bond, but even that had dampers thrown on it (GBH supported the first presidency letter aimed at discouraging/prohibitting even intra-marriage oral sex). As for the actions of other church leaders, i.e., Mark E. Peterson, I believe it can fairly be said that GBH never did anything to public repudiate or criticize their comments. Here's the link:

http://www.i4m.com/think/sexuality/

The page is not a completely accurate reflection of all my views, but it does a great deal, I think, to explain why the LDS faith's model of sex is not realistic and tends to have the effect of stifling or killing off our sexuality.

I suppose that you will nevertheless disagree with my conclusions and will imagine that it is perfectly reasonably and healthy to follow the conservative tradition of sex as something that should not be carnal or sensual, but that in order for it to be "guilt-free" we have to get God involved in the bedroom.

Your conjecture about whether I will "disagree" with you and on what basis is irrelevant. You made a statement - that GBH "hated" all things sexual. I do not equate "conservative" or even "restrictive" with HATING all things sexual. I think you crossed a line with using that terminology and I called you on it; plain and simple. You can disagree all you want with Pres. Hinckley as to the propriety of a whole host of matters, but to attribute "hate" was out of bounds, and is unsupported by your explanation.