Pornography And Lds: 25 Years From Now...

[keith_brian]

The best way to determine one's addiction to pornography is this question....

What are you willing to risk losing in order to continue your use of pornography?

Not in any particular order....

Your money?

Your reputation?

Your character?

Your health?

Your spouse?

Your job?

Your children?

Your peace of mind?

Your life?

Are any of those worth losing for another round of pornography viewing? If they are,

there is a problem and you should seek help. There is a remedy that can work for you.

If you are not addicted, but like to use pornography, could you go a month without it and

suffer no ill effects? If so, why bother with it?

Bernard

I think that they call this one the false dilemna fallacy. You are proposing this as if the only two possible options are to either stop pornography or to lose your family, etc. As we have already discussed, I think that's not even close to reflecting reality.

Bernard, is going to sleep at night worth losing your family over? If you're not addicted to it, shouldn't you try to go a month with only three hours of sleep per night to prove that you're not addicted? Otherwise, Satan has you in his grasp and can tempt you in your dreams.

Bernard, are you addicted to standing up and walking? If not, then try sitting down for a month. Is the desire to walk around really worth losing your family, job, and eternal salvation over?

At this point, I think your posts are similar to the people shouting at the Mormons on temple square: you don't want to actually listen to counterarguments or engage anyone beyond a superficial level. You just want a platform to preach.

[Grundelwalken]

Wait, what was he excommunicated for? For looking at pornography?

No, but for the aftermath of his pornography venture. Porn is just the beginning of a progression to other things (sort of like marijuana being a progression to other drugs). MW

[Grundelwalken]

It's not really a matter of belief but of fact. You say you meet people with this "problem" in your church calling; Cinepro mentions other Christian churches. That's all I'm saying: it is an artificial problem created by churches. I live in a thoroughly secular country where porn is freely available and it's simply not an issue.

Sure, there are people with problems and some of those people have problems with sexuality and some of those people have problems with porn - but I tell ya, it's a whole lot less people than the apparently porn-crazed majority of Mormon males that are intimated to fill our chapels every Sunday.

How is that a problem created by churches? A man (or sometimes woman, though not nearly so often) becomes addicted to porn (or maybe you don't believe there is such a thing-- in that case you can ignore the rest of this reply). His addiction creates feelings and desires that can only be satisfied by sexual behavior. At first he tries to satisfy them alone but eventually finds the need to act out in other ways. True, it is a sin (as designated by his church) and sinning can cause stress and strange behavior, but the acting out continues until his family can no longer trust him to be honest and his desires become so consuming that he cannot control them in any "normal, society accepted" way. I do not see this as a church made problem but I do see it as a soul destroying issue. I have helped wives, children and even husbands as they try to live through the challenges this evil creates. It Breaks my heart and I believe it would break yours if you had to listen to the stories and experiences these folks have to endure.

Just for my clarification, you are not saying that all forms of moral sin are just creations of churches to control their members, right? If so, I understand your response.

I too live in a secular land where porn is freely available and it is a HUGE issue-- both in the Church and out. Or maybe I'm just a 'global warming' kind of guy and I'm barking at the moon about all this.

[Loran Blood]

Most scientific research shows that pornography is not the societal scourge that many churches make it out to be.

This is some old and chewy sexual revolution mythology that can be easily discredited by other social science data as well as a knowledge of the social history of the West and America, which bears the distinctive scars of the sexual revolution, a modern cult of eroticism of which pornography is a major component.

Elder Faust claimed it is as addictive as cocaine; Elder Wirthlin called it a "plague" that "is swirling about us as never before" and brings "immorality, broken homes, and broken lives" and "will sap spiritual strength".

President Monson believes it leads to incest, rape and crime.

These things are not true.

The primary users of porn are teenage boys (who used to look at swim suit catalogues or TV guides or whatever medium shows some skin and curves). Those who buy porn, do so for about 15 to 25 dollars a month. They view it 7.7 times a month for 11.6 minutes per time. Hardly the downfall of society or the ruin of families.

I'd like a CFR for all of these claims, and then let's see if your sources can stand up to critical analysis.

It's only an issue for the religious right (that's where most of the scaremongering "research" comes from).

This is an ad hominem poison pill, not serious analysis.

It's a means to manipulate believers by inducing fear and guilt about sexuality. Sorry I'm a bit blunt but I am sick and tired of having to sit through talks about this non-issue time and again and then be asked by my 7-year old daughter about "photogramy" which topic would never ever be raised in our home if it weren't for the church.

What is your philosophy or pornography? Given the degree to which sexual addiction (of which addiction to pornography is a major component) is well known and understood within contemporary psychology and addiction counseling, the degree to which its symptoms and syndrome parallel very closely addictive syndromes in other areas (substance and other behavioral addictions), and its alarming prevalence among the general population, including among church members, I find your trivializing of both its fundamental nature and its effects to be both astonishing shallow and, most tellingly, spiritually lobotomized.

Does not the deep and fundamental evil represented by both what pornography is as well as what it represents to the user cause you any concern?

Your attitude, indeed, reminds me very much of the Christian minister who walks out to greet the alien invaders in War of the Worlds (1953) thinking that, because they were so technologically advanced, they were therefore "closer to the Creator." Like him, you are apparently wiling to expose both yourself, your children, and you entire society to exploitation, trivialization, and banalization of the most intimate relationship a man and woman can engage in and which has vast and sacred implications on the basis of nothing more than the imagery and feelings pornography seeks to elicit (which must be "good" if they make you "feel good."), which correspond to the bright, shiny and exotic machines of the Martians.

Perhaps the banalization of evil is one of Satan's most effective and underrated tools in the Last Days.

Edited August 2, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

It's not really a matter of belief but of fact.

which I'm sure then you can support with either logical argument or empirical data.

You say you meet people with this "problem" in your church calling; Cinepro mentions other Christian churches. That's all I'm saying: it is an artificial problem created by churches. I live in a thoroughly secular country where porn is freely available and it's simply not an issue.

I live in a country (United States) where pornography is freely available to any adult or child on any computer connected to the Internet in vast profusion and endless variety, and I"m telling you your bare assertions have no basis in human reality. I could also point out that in ancient feudal Japan, the Samarui lived in a society in which any Samarui, at any time, could line up peasent villagers and test the sharpness of his sword on them. He would also have told you that this was "not a problem." Do you see what I'm getting at, Ariarates?

Sure, there are people with problems and some of those people have problems with sexuality and some of those people have problems with porn - but I tell ya, it's a whole lot less people than the apparently porn-crazed majority of Mormon males that are intimated to fill our chapels every Sunday.

I'll let you in on a little secret that people who actually have the intellectual seriousness and curiosity to dig deep into their own minds and into the core questions of the human condition already know: the entire West is porn crazed. A cult of eroticism developed here from the late sixties onward that has affected probably nearly everyone in the culture, to one degree or another, and in one form or another. Sex addiction is its most extreme form. "Pornography" in the sense of visual depiction of sexual activity or symbolic suggestiveness has saturated the popular culture for forty years in America and Europe, and it continues to saturate the popular culture in ever more easily available and extreme forms. The porn "craze" is all around you, "built in" to most of popular media, including film, television, pop music, advertising, and the "hardcore" pornography industry (which is I think what most people mean by "pornography," although my definition is a bit broader).

What your statements so far are telling me is that you do not see pornography as an issue and do not see the sheer level of immersion present in western culture by this medium, because you yourself have absorbed and acclimatized yourself to it to the point that it has dissapeared to your consciousnesses.

This is, given the fundamental nature of pornography, rather like Wile E. Coyote opening that little umbrella over his head as a 50 ton rock falls toward him from above.

This is part of, I think, what the Book of Mormon means by Satan "lulling" the latter day Gentiles into "carnal security."

[Loran Blood]

Bingo. Unless the Church addresses it's conservative approach to the topic of sex it will never get "better". They are getting better just by being so open about the problem, but if the main teaching point continues to be fear driven (it is "evil", it will "destroy" you, etc) it will only get worse. Sexual desire is too powerful to limit it to something as simple as right and wrong.

I expected an essentially adolescent answer such as this to finally make its appearance in this thread, given its subject matter.

It always does.

[Loran Blood]

Twelve step programs, following the pattern of A.A. were finally endorsed in the General Conference before last. Colleen Harrison, author of He Did Deliever Me from Bondage, which was used by LDS social services for 9 years, demonstrated that the Book of Mormon contains the 12 steps. She wrote an essay for the Meridian celebrating that belated General Conference endorsement.

Unfortunately, the traditional twelve step disease model doesn't actually work very well as a means of attaining abstinence and healing from addiction - for any addiction, which is a primary reason why I wasn't able to finally walk away from my alcoholism until I left the twelve step movement and struck out on my own. I should say that the Harrison book, while good overall, was still far to beholden to the traditional twelve step philosophy, which was why I was glad to see the Church come out with its own addiction workbook, which used the twelve step pattern, but divested itself of a number of the core negatives of that model as traditionally understood.

Sex addiction is a bit more cruelly addictive than is alcohol or other forms of addictive relationships we can develop with phenomena in our environment, and this has to do with both its ease of generation (in the mind, if visual stimulation is not available) as well as the deep and powerful emotions and feelings that pornography manipulates and exploits.

[Loran Blood]

As in all addictions, the answer to the question "Why are you addicted?" is irrelevant to recovery, in my opinion.

That question usually cannot be answered until sobriety is achieved. Even then, it really doesn't matter in the long run.

Bernard

While I agree here in principle, I don't think sobriety need be achieved first before the fundamental basis of an addiction can by understood. This is because addiction is not an organic or genetic "disease", but a pathological relationship to something within our environment upon which we have become fundamentally dependent and to which we have given over a portion of our free agency. It may be a substance, a behavior, a sensation, a perceptual state, or even a person. Whatever the case, I have long ago come to the conclusion that addictions are generated and maintained for very real and deep seated reasons that are unique to each individual. They do not happen to us, but happen of us.

At the same time, the key to escape from addiction does not lie in an awareness of its origins and meaning per se. Because of the stubborn and ingrained power addiction can have, the solution is always more important than the cause, which is to say, it doesn't matter so much why you cease your addiction, as that you do.

[Loran Blood]

So pornography addiction has nothing to do with sexual desire? Gotcha. My bad. Carry on.

In a twisted, highly focused, artificial way, yes.

[Bernard Gui]

This article is an interesting look at the history and effectiveness of the 12-step methodology:

Secret of AA: After 75 Years, We Don't Know How It Works

It's good to have affirmation that one is Hoyle and

up to date.

Couldn't help notice this sly dig, though:

And now, after more than four years in the program? “I know God exists,” he says. “I’m so happy I found AA.”

Maybe one day we’ll discover that there’s a quirk in Gary’s genetic makeup that made his prefrontal cortex particularly susceptible to the 12 steps. But all that really matters now is that he’s sober.

Nope. Couldn't possibly be God.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The more hard-core pornography a society has, the better. In fact, based on those rape statistics, I think it's safe to say that if we could just get enough people watching hard-core pornography (and the harder-corer, the better), we might be able to eliminate rape entirely from our society.

I think most people probably missed my point, but you picked right up on it.

Thank you! At least we are in agreement on something.

I'm all for more porn. One can never have too

much porn.

Bernard

[Loran Blood]

Why dump on the porn addicts for the same thing that possibly is going on in non porn addicted men but who have a sexual relationship with their wives

??

[Loran Blood]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The more hard-core pornography a society has, the better. In fact, based on those rape statistics, I think it's safe to say that if we could just get enough people watching hard-core pornography (and the harder-corer, the better), we might be able to eliminate rape entirely from our society.

In all the empirical studies or statistics I've ever run across, nary a single rapist, sexual predator, or child molester who has ever been caught, either perpetrating the act or afterward, did not have pornography, or the essential "niche" pornography either on him or in his car/home etc.

By what intellectual gymnastics have you determined the precise relationship between chicken and egg here?

Edited August 2, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Bernard Gui]

I think that they call this one the false dilemna fallacy. You are proposing this as if the only two possible options are to either stop pornography or to lose your family, etc. As we have already discussed, I think that's not even close to reflecting reality.

Not at all. I say that if using pornography is more important to you than keeping your family, then you are addicted. It's quite clear.

Bernard, is going to sleep at night worth losing your family over? If you're not addicted to it, shouldn't you try to go a month with only three hours of sleep per night to prove that you're not addicted? Otherwise, Satan has you in his grasp and can tempt you in your dreams. 

Sleep is not analogous with sex.

Bernard, are you addicted to standing up and walking? If not, then try sitting down for a month. Is the desire to walk around really worth losing your family, job, and eternal salvation over?

Standing and walking are not analogous with sex.

At this point, I think your posts are similar to the people shouting at the Mormons on temple square: you don't want to actually listen to counterarguments or engage anyone beyond a superficial level. You just want a platform to preach.

You are free to walk away.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

No, but for the aftermath of his pornography venture. Porn is just the beginning of a progression to other things (sort of like marijuana being a progression to other drugs). MW

As with all addictions, what is visible at the surface is only the tip of the island that lies below, unseen.

Bernard

[Duncan]

??

What I meant was that chemically speaking what is the difference between looking at Porn and having intercourse? Doesn't the male body react the same way?

[Bernard Gui]

I too live in a secular land where porn is freely available and it is a HUGE issue-- both in the Church and out. Or maybe I'm just a 'global warming' kind of guy and I'm barking at the moon about all this.

I hear you, brother or sister...

It is not just a problem for "religious" people, but for anyone who becomes addicted. Just as alcoholism is not just

a problem for Russians and Irishmen....

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

Unfortunately, the traditional twelve step disease model doesn't actually work very well as a means of attaining abstinence and healing from addiction - for any addiction, which is a primary reason why I wasn't able to finally walk away from my alcoholism until I left the twelve step movement and struck out on my own. I should say that the Harrison book, while good overall, was still far to beholden to the traditional twelve step philosophy, which was why I was glad to see the Church come out with its own addiction workbook, which used the twelve step pattern, but divested itself of a number of the core negatives of that model as traditionally understood.

A workbook for co-dependency is making its way into the system, too. As with the LDS 12-Step, it is founded

on the atonement, but maintains a close relationship with the original 12 steps. I'm not so quick to dismiss the

original AA program. It has been helpful to many who have no other resource.

Sex addiction is a bit more cruelly addictive than is alcohol or other forms of addictive relationships we can develop with phenomena in our environment, and this has to do with both its ease of generation (in the mind, if visual stimulation is not available) as well as the deep and powerful emotions and feelings that pornography manipulates and exploits.

As well as its ubiquitous availability. One can stay out of bars, not hang out with old druggy friends, or avoid

other triggers, but as you have pointed out, there is no escape from pornography triggers in our culture. Well, maybe hermitism. Even then, one has the picture show available in the hard disk of the brain.

Bernard

[Loran Blood]

You equate sexuality and "our reproductive organs being hardwired to the pleasure centers of our brains by a high voltage cable", with substance addiction? Talk about non sequitur!

My patience with those who quite simply do not know what they are talking about is rather thin these days (especially on subjects such as this), but, given the moderation policies here, I will withdraw the verbal thrashing I was about to dispense, and just move on to the fun below.

To call pornography addicting in the same way that drinking alcohol or abusing drugs are addicting, is completely fallacious.

Why?

Sex is a natural function of the body.

A meaningless statement. Attempting to achive altered states of consciousness, for a variety of reasons, are also quite natural for human beings.

So is eating. So is sleeping. All of them can become harmful if taken to in excess. But they are NATURAL to our physical well being.

All you have managed to say here is that addiction is natural, and addiction, once established, is perceived by the addict as natural and essential to continued functioning.

That some forms of pornography are degraded, depraved, even disgusting, are in the eyes of the beholder:

A standard moral relativist argument, and easily put to the sword. I won't do that here because of the space required, suffice it to say its self negating character is well trod territory.

various forms of pornography do not de facto lead to certain types of behavior.

Indulgence in pornography is behavior. Its effects on the individual and on society are the Church's concern, grounded in its core principles of the fundamental nature and purpose of human sexuality.

I too am weary of the "evils of pornography", or the "pornography is addicting", sermons in church. I too sat through a lesson last Sunday on the subject. No useful, up to date counsel was given. It was all fear-mongering and outmoded throw-away assertions that are at least 20 years old (hey, about how long the Internet has been gearing up).

You should be afraid of pornography. Be very afraid...

An example: "If you took the money out of the equation, pornography on the internet would dry up and blow away overnight." Ah, I see, pornography is the biggest use of the Internet because the perps want to make money. Nothing could be further from the truth: the vast burgeoning of pornography on the Net is free, shared, voyeuristic and voluntary. With the apparent anonymity (important to many/most, at least at first), people are encouraged and enticed by the ease with which they can view other people being sexual; and share themselves being sexual. But will we hear this reality discussed in church anytime soon? I doubt it.

This is nonsense on a couple of fronts. In the first place, the vast majority of pornography on the Internet is not free. The freebies are hooks to entice you into pay sites. There is a vast quantity of it, but it is not even approximate to the vast majority. Secondly, the perps, are, indeed, perps. By the end of the seventies, some 90% of all pornography distributed and sold in North America and Europe was controlled by the Italian mafia (four or five of the major families) and this continued on through the eighties and to the present time, except that the Russian and other East European mafias have taken over a large quantity of it.

Here's my view on why pornography is sometimes destructive to individuals and families (and it is): the consumer of pornography is in trouble if s/he is any of these things: lazy, dishonest, cowardly, selfish. Just having a pathological problem with ONE of these vices would cause enough trouble to threaten or actually destroy a marriage (or invalidate a person as marriage worthy in the first place). And a porn "addict" probably has trouble with all of them to some degree. In other words: pornography is what they turn to because they are too lazy to put into their relationship the time, effort and caring concern necessary to communicate. They lack the honesty to admit their desires and discuss them; their lack of honesty with themselves even denies that they have a problem: they play the "blame game" and it is thus impossible to admit that they have a problem in the first place. Lacking integrity, they are afraid of the consequences of being caught, so they slither out of danger by lying and concealing, etc. Finally, being consummately selfish (Narcissistic), they do not care about anyone but themselves. And that, Brothers and Sisters, is the addiction: selfishness, not pornography.

This is, quite literally, the intellectual version of slapstick comedy. I'll respond to it once I pick myself up off the floor.

Edited August 2, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Bernard Gui]

While I agree here in principle, I don't think sobriety need be achieved first before the fundamental basis of an addiction can by understood. This is because addiction is not an organic or genetic "disease", but a pathological relationship to something within our environment upon which we have become fundamentally dependent and to which we have given over a portion of our free agency. It may be a substance, a behavior, a sensation, a perceptual state, or even a person. Whatever the case, I have long ago come to the conclusion that addictions are generated and maintained for very real and deep seated reasons that are unique to each individual. They do not happen to us, but happen of us.

At the same time, the key to escape from addiction does not lie in an awareness of its origins and meaning per se. Because of the stubborn and ingrained power addiction can have, the solution is always more important than the cause, which is to say, it doesn't matter so much why you cease your addiction, as that you do.

Which is the very point I was making. An addict may say, "I was abused when I was little, therefore, I am a

sex addict now." That is good to recognize, and the addict will have to deal with those horrible issues in order to heal, but for the purposes of becoming sober, the addict has to own the addiction and not pass the blame on to

someone else.

I am in total agreement with everything you are saying. Thank you for adding your knowledge and information.

Bernard

[keith_brian]

Not at all. I say that if using pornography is more important to you than keeping your family, then you are addicted. It's quite clear.

Here comes that good old fashioned false dilemma again ....

Sleep is not analogous with sex.

I could have used running if I knew that you're a runner or junk food if I knew you liked that. Just insert your favorite activity here instead of sleeping 8 hours per night.

Standing and walking are not analogous with sex.

Again

You are free to walk away.

As are you ...

Bernard, is watching television more important than your children not being beheaded by demons?

Bernard, is visiting the Mormon Dialogue message boards more important than your dog not dying in a car accident?

Bernard, is breathing more important than the sun not collapsing into a black hole?

Edited August 2, 2011 by keith_brian

[Bernard Gui]

In all the empirical studies or statistics I've ever run across, nary a single rapist, sexual predator, or child molester who has ever been caught, either perpetrating the act or afterward, did not have pornography, or the essential "niche" pornography either on him or in his car/home etc.

By what intellectual gymnastics have you determined the precise relationship between chicken and egg here?

cinepro was being sarcastic here....but sometimes it's hard to tell, given the medium we are using. And cinepro

likes to stir the pot.

Bernard

[Loran Blood]

What I meant was that chemically speaking what is the difference between looking at Porn and having intercourse? Doesn't the male body react the same way?

I can think of vast differences between looking at porn and actually having sex. Which brings us to a fundamental point, which, and I guess I have to be frank here, given the subject matter: pornography, precisely, is not real sex: Pornography, is masturbation. Period. Pardon my frank language, again, but pornography is the sexual life of the masturbator; it is the compensatory and artificial alternative to real sex - voyeurism. As its indulgence becomes entrenched, masturbatory voyeurism takes the place of "real" sex, as the surreal fantasy environment created by pornography displaces the relatively mundane realities of sex in the real world.

Further, sex in the world of pornography is consequence free (as all masturbationary exploits appear), as it allows one to fantasize about behavior that one would be loath to actually engage in in real life, due to the perceived probable consequences of such behavior, but which, in time, may become a live issue as the fantasy realm continues to displace and overwhelm the realm of reality.

As has been observed by many others, few real woman can ever compete with the highly primped and prepared (and airbrushed, in many cases) centerfold. Nor can most men ever compete with the typical Hollywood or soap opera "hunk."

Edited August 2, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Bernard Gui]

Here comes that good old fashioned false dilemma again ....

I could have used running if I knew that you're a runner or junk food if I knew you liked that. Just insert your favorite activity here instead of sleeping 8 hours per night.

Bernard, is watching television more important than your children not being beheaded by demons?

Bernard, is visiting the Mormon Dialogue message boards more important than your dog not dying in a car accident?

Bernard, is breathing more important than the sun not collapsing into a black hole?

I'm afraid we are not communicating.

Using a highly publicized true case, so that I am not revealing any confidences, let's look at a public servant. I will not mention his location or profession because I respect his right to privacy and his right to pursue healing.

He's a highly moral man, well-respected by his fellow workers and the public he serves. He works hard and is a devoted father and husband.

He serves in the church and community organizations. He has received many honors and decorations for his service. He has a problem: he's secretly addicted to pornography. He has been since his teenage years when he was exposed to it at a friend's home. No one suspects, not even his wife of many

years. Inside he is in h*** everyday. He knows that this is wrong and if he is exposed it will cost him pretty much everything that is good in his life. Is he willing to risk all that, just for another hit of pornography? Can't his feelings of

shame and guilt cause him to just stop and walk away?

To help hide his addiction, he uses a laptop computer in his car. But one night someone sees a light coming out of the interior of a car and approaches to find out what it is. Since he is on official business, the person recognizes him and videotapes him watching pornography in his car on the public's time.

With the ensuing publicity, he loses everything that is good in his life, including his family.

This is sexual addiction. It is different than running, walking, sleeping, diving, roller-blading, walking the dog, picking your nose. He risked losing everything because he could not stop using pornography. His agency was held hostage

by his addiction, and he paid the price. I know the man personally and watched him crash and burn in horror.

If you can't see the point now, I can't help you.

Bernard

Edited August 2, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Loran Blood]

A workbook for co-dependency is making its way into the system, too. As with the LDS 12-Step, it is founded

on the atonement, but maintains a close relationship with the original 12 steps. I'm not so quick to dismiss the

original AA program. It has been helpful to many who have no other resource.

The actual recidivism rate of the traditional twelve step program turns out to be fantastically high. It does help, but for the vast majority, only temporarily. Its an excellent baby step to full healing and certainly toward an initial "drying out," whatever the addiction may be. It was only some years after I decided that what I was really working toward was not permanent recovery (the twelves step concept) but being recovered (becoming a non-addict) did I finally begin reading and studying outside the twelve step box and working toward a real solution. I guess I kind of picked and chose what aspects of the twelve steps I would keep and which I would eliminate from my personal philosophy of addiction and recovery, and moved forward into the unknown. Fortunately, neither my body nor my personal desires allowed by to continue with this addition beyond a certain point.

Actually, I perceive that the Lord, Jesus Christ took the addiction from me once I was really ready to abandon it, and at this point in my life, I am very doubtful that I could, even if I wanted to, return to it again.