Elder Oaks: Not All Pornography Viewing Is "addiction"

[cinepro]

One of the most common criticisms towards the Church seems to be past teachings that classified everyone who looked at pornography as an "addict".  To my surprise, the current issue of the New Era magazine (the Church's magazine for teenagers) has an article by Elder Oaks about pornography which includes this:

 

In earlier times and circumstances, our counsel about pornography focused principally on helping individuals to avoid initial exposure or to recover from addiction. While those efforts are still important, past experience and current circumstances have shown the need for counsel addressed to levels of pornography use between the polar extremes of avoidance and addiction. It is helpful to focus on four different levels of involvement with pornography: (1) inadvertent exposure, (2) occasional use, (3) intensive use, and (4) compulsive use (addiction).

 

Recovering from the Trap of Pornography

 

This could be the first teaching I've seen from the Church recently about pornography that I think might actually help church members to cope with the issue in a more realistic way. 

[Duncan]

One of the most common criticisms towards the Church seems to be past teachings that classified everyone who looked at pornography as an "addict".  To my surprise, the current issue of the New Era magazine (the Church's magazine for teenagers) has an article by Elder Oaks about pornography which includes this:

 

 

 

 

This could be the first teaching I've seen from the Church recently about pornography that I think might actually help church members to cope with the issue in a more realistic way. 

 

 

I can only imagine he got a flood of letters from people about this. One problem with this topic as others is you feel bad about yourself if you're labeled and guess what you do to feel good? go back to the problem, thus making it worse

Edited October 2, 2015 by Duncan

[CV75]

One of the most common criticisms towards the Church seems to be past teachings that classified everyone who looked at pornography as an "addict".  To my surprise, the current issue of the New Era magazine (the Church's magazine for teenagers) has an article by Elder Oaks about pornography which includes this:

 

This could be the first teaching I've seen from the Church recently about pornography that I think might actually help church members to cope with the issue in a more realistic way. 

Nothing wrong with the message, but it is amazing to me how things that were once taken for sheer common sense now have to be spelled out by the Lord’s oracles. I think it shows how far apart society and the Gospel are moving away from each other. Of course correct attitudes and behavior follow correct understanding of doctrine, and doctrinal understanding is undermined by personal loss of receptivity to the Light of Christ, which phenomenon must now be occurring on a massive scale.

 

I think the article by Elder Hales in the same issue touches upon the need to understand the plan of salvation in order to address the "new" issues that society faces today in an environment created by the rejection of the Light of Christ.

[drums12]

Elder Oaks came to my BYUI stake in 2006 to reorganize it.  He had recently (2005 I think) spoken in General Conference about pornography.  He said he got more letters after that than any other GC talk since he'd been a general authority.  One letter that really stuck out to him was from a Relief Society President who pointed out that several sisters in her ward were readers of romance novels.  I don't remember exactly, but I think her point was that it isn't just men looking at porn, but also women reading what amounts to aural porn.  

[BlueDreams]

I really really like this, particularly the explanation that inadvertent exposure does not need any form of repentance, just correction. And that occasional use can be both occasional or even frequent use. And then the difference between habitual use and dependency. I've had several clients who have come in with porn "addictions" that aren't actually addictions or honestly even close. Helping them recognize the actual nature of their problem has been one of the most powerful tools to help them to stop. The other, which was tied, was reducing shame. I do have one small discrepancy. Though pornography is serious, I think describing or bunching it with sins entailing life or death can inadvertently compound shame. Having more variance of the "level or evil" per se, IMO can also be helpful.

 

 

But either way, this made my morning.

With luv,

BD 

[BlueDreams]

Elder Oaks came to my BYUI stake in 2006 to reorganize it.  He had recently (2005 I think) spoken in General Conference about pornography.  He said he got more letters after that than any other GC talk since he'd been a general authority.  One letter that really stuck out to him was from a Relief Society President who pointed out that several sisters in her ward were readers of romance novels.  I don't remember exactly, but I think her point was that it isn't just men looking at porn, but also women reading what amounts to aural porn.  

IMO, romance novels are not on the same level as porn. Most are closer to rated R movies (at best). Porn is porn and women have a growing problem with that as well. There is pornographic reading material, but romance novels are a very large genre and can range from things like Twilight to Fifty Shades of Gray and beyond, so I'm not a fan when they're all lumped together. 

[Rivers]

One of the most common criticisms towards the Church seems to be past teachings that classified everyone who looked at pornography as an "addict". To my surprise, the current issue of the New Era magazine (the Church's magazine for teenagers) has an article by Elder Oaks about pornography which includes this:

This could be the first teaching I've seen from the Church recently about pornography that I think might actually help church members to cope with the issue in a more realistic way.

I have never seen any truth in this criticism leveled at the church. The church has never taught that looking at pornography once is an addiction.

But I agree that Elder Oaks' new approach is probably more effective.

[JAHS]

One of the most common criticisms towards the Church seems to be past teachings that classified everyone who looked at pornography as an "addict".  To my surprise, the current issue of the New Era magazine (the Church's magazine for teenagers) has an article by Elder Oaks about pornography which includes this:

 

 

 

 

This could be the first teaching I've seen from the Church recently about pornography that I think might actually help church members to cope with the issue in a more realistic way. 

 

It's a good idea. Immediatly calling things an "addiction" carries a very negative connotation that can cause one to have sense of giving up on trying to stop the activity; when in reality it may just be a habit that needs to be broken. 

[HappyJackWagon]

This is so obvious but also very helpful.

 

Spelling it out like this helps individuals have a more realistic view of the issue and how it effects them.

It also could change the way ecclesiastical leaders work with members with occassional use. I've met many people who have been told they are a p0rn addict because they check out the swimsuit issue when it comes out. Seriously.

Elder Oaks talk helps to put things into a little perspective

[Buckeye]

IMO, romance novels are not on the same level as porn. Most are closer to rated R movies (at best). Porn is porn and women have a growing problem with that as well. There is pornographic reading material, but romance novels are a very large genre and can range from things like Twilight to Fifty Shades of Gray and beyond, so I'm not a fan when they're all lumped together. 

 

How about this? Romance novels are the equivalent of lingerie ads (the standard JCP ads, not Victoria Secrets).

[bluebell]

How about this? Romance novels are the equivalent of lingerie ads (the standard JCP ads, not Victoria Secrets).

 

It really does depend on the novel. Some are tame, like a JCP lingerie ad, and others are just penthouse in word form.  

 

What drives me nuts are the ones that aren't marketed as a typical romance novel and catch me by surprise.  These are the ones where the story is more an action/adventure with a love story but which end up being explicit enough in their sex scenes to definitely be soft core porn.  The really popular Outlanders series is the last one that i bumped up against.  

[Ginger Snaps]

Elder Oaks came to my BYUI stake in 2006 to reorganize it.  He had recently (2005 I think) spoken in General Conference about pornography.  He said he got more letters after that than any other GC talk since he'd been a general authority.  One letter that really stuck out to him was from a Relief Society President who pointed out that several sisters in her ward were readers of romance novels.  I don't remember exactly, but I think her point was that it isn't just men looking at porn, but also women reading what amounts to aural porn.  

That was actually addressed in the General Women's Session this last weekend. 

Edited October 2, 2015 by Ginger Snaps

[Ginger Snaps]

It really does depend on the novel. Some are tame, like a JCP lingerie ad, and others are just penthouse in word form.  

 

What drives me nuts are the ones that aren't marketed as a typical romance novel and catch me by surprise.  These are the ones where the story is more an action/adventure with a love story but which end up being explicit enough in their sex scenes to definitely be soft core porn.  The really popular Outlanders series is the last one that i bumped up against.  

This.  I love historical fiction, but I have come across some stuff that is nothing more than smut in period costume.

 

[rongo]

 He said he got more letters after that than any other GC talk since he'd been a general authority.  One letter that really stuck out to him 

A pet peeve of mine is the repeated emphasis on not writing GAs letters; such letters will be sent to the stake presidents to be addressed, etc.

 

What's the over/under on how many GC talks will quote from or refer to letters received from members? 

 

When GAs say repeatedly not to write letters to GAs, but then quote (often) from letters they receive, it guarantees that more and more letters will be written. Especially by people whose psychological needs are such that they think it would be really cool to have their letter referred to in GC or other conferences.

[bluebell]

A pet peeve of mine is the repeated emphasis on not writing GAs letters; such letters will be sent to the stake presidents to be addressed, etc.

 

What's the over/under on how many GC talks will quote from or refer to letters received from members? 

 

When GAs say repeatedly not to write letters to GAs, but then quote (often) from letters they receive, it guarantees that more and more letters will be written. Especially by people whose psychological needs are such that they think it would be really cool to have their letter referred to in GC or other conferences.

 

I never got the impression that the GA's don't want letters, but rather, than they don't want people to write them letters to get specific answers to questions or to complain.  Maybe i'm confused on that though.

[rongo]

I never got the impression that the GA's don't want letters, but rather, than they don't want people to write them letters to get specific answers to questions or to complain.  Maybe i'm confused on that though.

The periodic letters that come out state that we aren't to write them; we're to address things like that to our local leaders. If we do, they will be sent back to them. Except, they quote from these all the time. I know several people in my stake who write letters to apostles, hoping to "hit the jackpot" and have it referenced in GC.

 

Which is a major reason for the policy (even when exceptions are routinely made).

[cinepro]

I have never seen any truth in this criticism leveled at the church. The church has never taught that looking at pornography once is an addiction.

But I agree that Elder Oaks' new approach is probably more effective.

 

You mean other than Elder Oaks saying "In earlier times and circumstances, our counsel about pornography focused principally on helping individuals to avoid initial exposure or to recover from addiction." 

 

If the Church is addressing pornography as a black/white "avoidance or addiction" issue, than that would logically lead to the assumption that if you don't or can't avoid it, it should be treated as an addiction.

 

If you were correct, Elder Oaks could have said "In the past, the Church has never taught that looking at pornography once is an addiction.  Let me discuss the different degrees of exposure we find among Church members, and how best to deal with each situation."

[CV75]

If the Church is addressing pornography as a black/white "avoidance or addiction" issue, than that would logically lead to the assumption that if you don't or can't avoid it, it should be treated as an addiction.

Only when using black-and-white logic!

 

And that's a big "If." Providing general counsel primarily on avoidance and addiction recovery is no more a black-and-white approach than is preaching obedience and repentance. “Thou shalt not… nor do anything like unto it,” but if you do, repent. The “but-what-about-this?” questions were typically addressed in individual conversation with parents, bishops, etc. The Church has obviously identified a need to be expand its general counsel, probably because too many saints are caught up somewhere along the spectrum to receive inspired guidance for themselves!

[rongo]

I do think that the Church has swung the pendulum too far to the "addiction recovery" camp --- encouraging all sorts of people who don't have addictions to attend and participate in the ARP and treat themselves/consider themselves as addicts (especially with the nebulous "co-depedency" label). I've been to ward-wide and stake-wide trainings by the ADR missionaries who insist that everyone is an addict of some sort --- but the ones who attend 12 step regularly are the honest ones.

 

I think this is why so many members have such a hard time overcoming their actual addictions. The system is set up such that there isn't an expectation for the training wheels to ever come off. And if one ever thinks he no longer needs the group, his sponsor(s), etc., he's in the thrall of backsliding.

 

I've had multiple people in the last couple of months confess (because they're on that step) and apologize (because they're on that step and have to make a "My Name is Earl" karma list) ---- when they had nothing to confess and hadn't ever offended me.

 

These are people who are in 12 step because of "anger" or "overwork" addictions. While I think people should try to better themselves through repentance and improvement, I think we now call all sorts of things "addictions" that need to be dealt with through ARP that aren't properly "addictions." And they all fit under the ill/non=defined umbrella of "co-dependency."

[rongo]

 

 

These are people who are in 12 step because of "anger" or "overwork" addictions. 

I'm not belittling these, or other repentance items people are working on. But, for example, if one realizes that he's working too much and neglecting family and callings, then one can repent and do better without viewing oneself as an addict. Simply work on not getting angry, overworking, etc.

[CV75]

I do think that the Church has swung the pendulum too far to the "addiction recovery" camp --- encouraging all sorts of people who don't have addictions to attend and participate in the ARP and treat themselves/consider themselves as addicts (especially with the nebulous "co-depedency" label). I've been to ward-wide and stake-wide trainings by the ADR missionaries who insist that everyone is an addict of some sort --- but the ones who attend 12 step regularly are the honest ones.

 

I think this is why so many members have such a hard time overcoming their actual addictions. The system is set up such that there isn't an expectation for the training wheels to ever come off. And if one ever thinks he no longer needs the group, his sponsor(s), etc., he's in the thrall of backsliding.

 

I've had multiple people in the last couple of months confess (because they're on that step) and apologize (because they're on that step and have to make a "My Name is Earl" karma list) ---- when they had nothing to confess and hadn't ever offended me.

 

These are people who are in 12 step because of "anger" or "overwork" addictions. While I think people should try to better themselves through repentance and improvement, I think we now call all sorts of things "addictions" that need to be dealt with through ARP that aren't properly "addictions." And they all fit under the ill/non=defined umbrella of "co-dependency."

That's interesting -- I ran into someone I knew at the chapel one evening, noticed his missioanry badge and asked what was up with that. He explained he was on a Church mission for addiction recovery. I was a little surprised his class (2 rooms) were right there in the lobby, and I said, "Not too annonymous, is it?" He said there isn't the stigma there once was, and that they don't go into any specifics about individuals' addictions anyway.

 

I once had a bishop tell the PEC that everyone is addicted to something. I shared that I was addicted to righteousness.

 

Anyway, I think the workbook is very good (informationally and as a tool) for anyone to use in gaining a better unerstanding of how to apply the Atonement.

[Ginger Snaps]

The periodic letters that come out state that we aren't to write them; we're to address things like that to our local leaders. If we do, they will be sent back to them. Except, they quote from these all the time. I know several people in my stake who write letters to apostles, hoping to "hit the jackpot" and have it referenced in GC.

 

Which is a major reason for the policy (even when exceptions are routinely made).

Yes, but I think the local leaders also have the option to "escalate" the letter up the chain don't they?  I have no personal experience, but it was my impression that one could send a letter to the Bishop/Stake Pres and it might be sent up through the A70 and then to the apostle in question. 

[rongo]

That's how it's supposed to work. The kinds of letters they quote in GC aren't ones that would have worked their way up the chain --- they are sent to apostles (and read in conference).

[Ginger Snaps]

That's interesting -- I ran into someone I knew at the chapel one evening, noticed his missioanry badge and asked what was up with that. He explained he was on a Church mission for addiction recovery. I was a little surprised his class (2 rooms) were right there in the lobby, and I said, "Not too annonymous, is it?" He said there isn't the stigma there once was, and that they don't go into any specifics about individuals' addictions anyway.

 

I once had a bishop tell the PEC that everyone is addicted to something. I shared that I was addicted to righteousness.

 

Anyway, I think the workbook is very good (informationally and as a tool) for anyone to use in gaining a better unerstanding of how to apply the Atonement.

Interesting.  Our stake holds an addiction recovery group on Sunday nights, and there are explicit instructions that nobody else may hold meetings at the stake center for an hour before or after they meet. 

[Ginger Snaps]

That's how it's supposed to work. The kinds of letters they quote in GC aren't ones that would have worked their way up the chain --- they are sent to apostles (and read in conference).

But you don't know that, right?  I'm not trying to  being argumentative but how do we know that the person just simply didn't approach their local leadership and ask them to please forward this letter in those cases?