Rhoades

You may be confused about what porn is.  There's a good LDS video that teaches kids about porn at https://www.lds.org/youth/video/what-should-i-do-when-i-see-pornography?lang=eng
 
At the 1:35 mark it teaches "pornography means bad pictures of people with little or no clothes on."  This supports JojoBag's statement that "racy photos, including bikini shots, lingerie and other such filth are pornography".
 
One of the points of the video is that when you encounter it you should immediately "call it what it is". 
 
If the images are "racy" with little clothes on, they are porn.
 
In the "True to the Faith" book, Chastity chapter (https://www.lds.org/manual/true-to-the-faith/chastity?lang=eng) in the "Stay away from pornography" section it teaches "Do not view, read, or listen to anything that depicts or describes the human body or sexual conduct in a way that can arouse sexual feelings."

You may be confused about what porn is.  There's a good LDS video that teaches kids about porn at https://www.lds.org/youth/video/what-should-i-do-when-i-see-pornography?lang=eng
 
At the 1:35 mark it teaches "pornography means bad pictures of people with little or no clothes on."  This supports JojoBag's statement that "racy photos, including bikini shots, lingerie and other such filth are pornography".
 
One of the points of the video is that when you encounter it you should immediately "call it what it is". 
 
If the images are "racy" with little clothes on, they are porn.
 
In the "True to the Faith" book, Chastity chapter (https://www.lds.org/manual/true-to-the-faith/chastity?lang=eng) in the "Stay away from pornography" section it teaches "Do not view, read, or listen to anything that depicts or describes the human body or sexual conduct in a way that can arouse sexual feelings."

I'm with you, Vort.
Before I actually looked at it directly (i.e. when it was only seen in the peripheral), I subconsciously thought it was a pig.
Now that you've directed my attention to the image and I've processed it for what it is (a kitten), I have a hard time getting the pig.

Now isn't this the question of all questions and wouldn't it be wonderful if there were a bullet point power point that highlighted point A, B, C, D... to a more sure word of prophecy; unfortunately, we do not, and probably with good reason.  When I ponder this question, a question we have all asked ourselves (or at least anyone who desires to know God) these are some of the points I ponder (as I have experienced success, and failure).
 
1) Pure intelligence entering the heart and mind will lead the sons and daughters toward God, all that is good.  Pure intelligence will lead a person to forsake sin, overcome weakness, be more obedient, and serve his fellow humans.  This scripture found in Abraham is my starting point:
 
"And, finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge..."
 
To know God's voice is a process (grace upon grace) of obedience, receive more knowledge, pursue obedience further, and in turn receive more knowledge.  What then are we willing to give up to know God?  Our wealth, our friends, all our sins?
 
2) What if pure intelligence flowed through my heart and mind, and it was not from God, but through my own thoughts and those thoughts were good?  Rejoice!  All things which are good cometh from God.  Our objective is to become like God, and as we become like God our mind will then pursue good experiences on its own accord.  How wonderful that is!  If good, and even through our own heart and mind, as Spencer W. Kimball said, "Just do it."  This is not something that specifies we do not know God, but actually highlights that we are becoming like God, or as the scripture specifies we should all be anxiously engaged, not compelled, to do good things of our own free will, our own volition.  
 
3) Satan?  How often do we as LDS fall victim to the adversary's temptings?  Sadly, probably more often than we should; however, as we look back to option #1 (grace for grace), are we willing to repent the moment we recognize we are in error?  A thought from the adversary will always pit our will against God's.  He will always seek to inspire us to be selfish, self-centered, lovers of self, and seekers of pleasure.  
 
4) Be patient with oneself, and the process of learning.  Growth by the spirit cannot be forced.  It will come, as Crypto specified not by our will, not by any of our wishing, but will come in the due time of the Lord.  Thus the scripture, wait patiently upon the Lord to reveal his arm.
 
In some circumstances, I have come to know when the Lord is teaching me.  In other circumstances, I appear to fail miserably.  

You can get that on ebay.  But, why not go for 100 trillion?
 
 

You can get that on ebay.  But, why not go for 100 trillion?
 
 

I agree that humility and love are important factors here.  Charity "is not easily provoked" comes to mind. (1 Corinthians 13:5)
 
There are both non-religious and religious people that have the charity and humility to not get easily offended.  Some people just seem to be blessed with this gift more than others.  But, we should all be seeking for more charity/humility.  It is through the atonement of Christ that God can change our hearts if we accept and allow it.
 
One of my favorite examples of not being offended is Pahoran's response to captain Moroni in The Book of Mormon after Moroni berates him in Alma 60-61.
 
Moroni says things like
 
If a church leader implied that God told him you were transgressing (even though you weren't) and that he needed to take action against you, how would you respond?
 
Pahoran knew Moroni had good intentions but was lacking knowledge of the situation.  He didn't get offended, he said:
 

Essential reading = scriptures.
 
If you spend an hour a day reading scriptures, every day, you will do just fine. No other books are necessary -- not Jesus the Christ, not Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, not even Lectures on Faith. Nothing else. Just the scriptures.
 
Though if you want to augment the scriptures, I think Lectures on Faith is a very good place to start. But the point is, read the scriptures.
 
PS For the purposes of this particular conversation, I would include the most recent General Conference talks as scripture.

Do you know people with awesome names that make you smile?
 
My youngest child is Hosanna.  One time our local Christian music station had a contest, asking for unusual names and the stories behind them.  We submitted her name, saying, "Every time someone calls her they have no choice but to praise the LORD."  Yeah...we won! 

There are different degrees of salvation.  Sometimes "salvation" means any degree of salvation and sometimes it means the highest, celestial.  One could say "baptism is required for salvation" and actually mean "salvation in the celestial kingdom".
 
My current thinking is that baptism is not required for lower kingdoms.  This is also what Joseph Fielding Smith thought.
Answer: The scriptures are very clear in declaring that baptism is for the celestial kingdom only. For a place in the terrestrial or the telestial kingdom, baptism is not required."
(Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, vol. 5, pg. 147)
 
However, I knew a career CES guy years ago that seemed unaware of this teaching when I told him about that quote.  He thought proxy ordinances would be done for everyone.  I'm not sure.
 
Another thing to consider is those that do not live to the age of accountability and inherit the celestial kingdom. Since we do NOT perform proxy ordinances for them, some think they do not need baptism.  However, it could be that they will receive baptism themselves during the millennium.  Again, I'm not sure.

I'm not PC, but that can easily be explained as foreknowledge.  God has a foreknowledge of things.  As PC pointed out, most explanations if you take into account the background of the interpreter are not too unreasonable.

This discussion led me to think about what leads us to knowledge of doctrine.  Here are some (not all) of them:
Prayer  "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God" (James 1:5) Apostles, prophets, etc. (and the church) "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; ... Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God" (Ephesians 4:11-14)  And, Ephesians 3:2-6 provides an example of doctrine not understood by the disciples while Christ was on the earth, but revealed later to the church through apostles and prophets. Righteousness "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine" (John 7:17)  See also 2 Peter 1:5-9. All Scriptures "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine" (2 Timothy 3:16)  See also John 5:39. Underlying all of these, is Revelation  "the things of God knoweth no man, but [by] the Spirit of God" (1 Corinthians 2:11-12) and "the Spirit of truth ... will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the restoration of Christ's church, and has provided needed apostles and prophets, valuable scripture, and the opportunity for its members to receive more revelation through the authorized gift of the Holy Ghost.  God has provided a way for us to receive more knowledge of doctrine via his restored church than we could ever have without it.

Vort...and all...the question of what people thought at the time is one of those impossibilities.  My only purpose in this string has been to show the reasonableness of the traditional view.  That most translators, most traditional commentators, the current Orthodox of the religion in which the Bible originated, all concur that creation was God making stuff seems to me sufficient to show the plausibility  of creation-out-of-nothing.  I recognize also that some scientists argue for the eternal existence of matter, that the original interpretations of Bible passages cannot be known with absolute certainty, and that LDS prophets have revealed that there was an existence before the creation of the world, and each of us had a conscience part in it.  I guess my bottom line is that none of us is being ridiculous or outrageous. 

I would cite other verses than the one used, to debate against ex nihilo. But I agree with Prison Chaplin in that it could be a reasonable way to interpret scripture. (It should be obvious that while I say it is reasonable, I still disagree with his position. Which is Okay!  )

This reminded me of when one of my young children was very disturbed by the violence in a Joseph Smith movie in a temple visitor's center.  The children had to leave the movie early, and this particular child was traumatized by it for a while.  :)
 
Due to their wonderful imaginations, their still-developing sense of discernment between fiction and reality, and their propensity to have nightmares, I think there are movies suitable for older children and adults that are not suitable for some young children.

On a related note, there are reputable physics theories that say the world can actually be better explained as a 2D holographic than 3D.

Some good replies so far.
 
Something to add is that it is common for an investigator or new convert to receive more attention compared to after you have been around for a while.  Depending on your ward you may feel like a celebrity at first, but then that tapers off over time.  As the attention or excitement surrounding the baptism wears off, you will still have people that genuinely love you and remember you.  There are other things that generate similar hype, like getting a mission call or going to the temple to be sealed to a spouse.  You'll likely experience similar feelings towards others as you're with them during their monumental steps to follow Jesus Christ.  You'll develop lasting friendships and love for your fellow saints through these experiences.

So in order to help one unknown stranger you are willing hurt/alienate other unknown strangers?
 
Now let me tell you why I think the idea that the church needs to somehow do more to teach about the flaws of its leaders... is total bull crap...  The reason is simple.  It already does.
 
The church instructs, informs, asks and otherwise highly encourages all it members to read the scriptures daily.  They use words like feast and ponder in association with this.  Do you know what you find in each of the 4 standard works we call scriptures?  Stories and examples of very human people with very human flaws.  For example you can't say you have studied the Doctrine and Covenants, without finding several instances of the Lord himself rebuking Joseph Smith for his sins and weakness.  Lets repeat...  Joseph Smith, the Lord, in canonized scripture that every member should be studying regularly.
 
New Testament its about the Leaders of the church hand picked by Christ in the flesh.  The gospels are full of their denials, their disbelief.  Even after the resurrection they have their disagreements with each other.
 
Old Testament oh man don't get me started.
 
Book of Mormon... ok that is a bit harder...  But Lehi who murmurs when Nephi breaks his bow, Mormon who who acts on incomplete information and unjustly rebukes Pahoran.  You have the Alma(s) who clearly had a lot of sins to deal with as part of their conversions.
 
The simple fact is that if people are doing what they have been asked to do by the leaders of the church they are getting repeatedly shown by examples that people that God calls as leaders have weakness, flaws, and imperfections from some of the most authoritative sources the Church recognizes.
 
In addition to, and to help with the primacy of personal study, the church also offers as additional helps things like gospel doctrine and other classes.
 
So really what more do you want the church to do to reach out to these people who aren't following their councils in the first place?  Do you want the church to treat them like baby chicks and regurgitate into their mouths the information they seem unwilling or unable to acquire on their own?  And if so how does this reduce the members reliance on the Church as an organization and put it where it properly belongs. (On to the Lord and themselves)
 
 
Simply put if these quite unassuming folks you are worried about are listening and following the instructions of the leader of the church they can't help but be exposed from very high and authoritative sources that our leaders have flaws, and that God will work with them anyways.  But if they are not listening and following, how do you expect more actions from the church to address the subject to make any difference?
 
Now to change subject just a bit...  After pointing how many stories are in the scriptures about leaders and their flaws some people might say "well then what is the problem with posting threads like this one if the scriptures say the same thing?"  The answer is simple. balance and the spirit.
 
The scripture document their flaws but it also documents their callings as someone called of God.  This makes it very clear that calling and flaws are not mutually exclusive.  And ultimately supports them and God.  Now read the OP...  All flaws... nothing about their calling or their successes.  There is absolutely nothing there that shows that God made the right call.  I can't see that as anything but faith destroying to those that "generally won't talk about it but slip quietly away"
 
So posts like this are very unlikely to help the people you are saying it might help... but very likely to hurt those you wish to help.  So how is it wise?

This makes me think of "At the Back of the North Wind" by George MacDonald. It is (***SPOILER ALERT**) a story of a boy called Diamond who is dying. He meets a goddess-like woman who is a personification of the North Wind; sometimes she is a huge giantess and sometimes she is tiny (just as the wind varies in size) and she takes him away on a magical adventure.
 
There is one point in the story where Diamond has to walk on a high precipice; he is afraid but says he will try to be brave. The North Wind replies (I've paraphrased it slightly): "To try to be brave is to be brave - a coward who tries to be brave is braver than the brave man who never had to try".
 
Maybe to try to do our best is to do our best.

Over twenty years ago when I first learned the term "Utah Mormon" at BYU I took it to mean what you describe; not necessarily people who are from UT.  I quickly decided that since "Utah Mormons" are not exclusive to UT and not everybody from UT is a "Utah Mormon" I needed a better term.  I ended up using "Mormon".  In my mind the term "Mormon" was derogatory, as opposed to a "Saint" or "Christian" which meant members of the Church trying to live their religion.
 
A short while later I realized I didn't like using "Mormon" as a derogatory term, and none of that was beneficial anyway.  I shouldn't try to classify people as either "Mormon" or "Saint".  That doesn't help me see the best in people.  We all have weaknesses and I need to look for the good.  I have since learned this is charity, which "is kind" and "thinketh no evil".  I shouldn't think the worst.  And it helps me to not classify individuals or even groups in to anything that my mind might perceive as derogatory (e.g. "Utah Mormon", "white trash", etc. ).
 
I do acknowledge that real pain and hurt can come from some people.  They can be hard to deal with.  And it's OK to recognize bad behavior.  But, remember to not let some people's behavior unfairly affect how we feel about others.

Over twenty years ago when I first learned the term "Utah Mormon" at BYU I took it to mean what you describe; not necessarily people who are from UT.  I quickly decided that since "Utah Mormons" are not exclusive to UT and not everybody from UT is a "Utah Mormon" I needed a better term.  I ended up using "Mormon".  In my mind the term "Mormon" was derogatory, as opposed to a "Saint" or "Christian" which meant members of the Church trying to live their religion.
 
A short while later I realized I didn't like using "Mormon" as a derogatory term, and none of that was beneficial anyway.  I shouldn't try to classify people as either "Mormon" or "Saint".  That doesn't help me see the best in people.  We all have weaknesses and I need to look for the good.  I have since learned this is charity, which "is kind" and "thinketh no evil".  I shouldn't think the worst.  And it helps me to not classify individuals or even groups in to anything that my mind might perceive as derogatory (e.g. "Utah Mormon", "white trash", etc. ).
 
I do acknowledge that real pain and hurt can come from some people.  They can be hard to deal with.  And it's OK to recognize bad behavior.  But, remember to not let some people's behavior unfairly affect how we feel about others.

Over twenty years ago when I first learned the term "Utah Mormon" at BYU I took it to mean what you describe; not necessarily people who are from UT.  I quickly decided that since "Utah Mormons" are not exclusive to UT and not everybody from UT is a "Utah Mormon" I needed a better term.  I ended up using "Mormon".  In my mind the term "Mormon" was derogatory, as opposed to a "Saint" or "Christian" which meant members of the Church trying to live their religion.
 
A short while later I realized I didn't like using "Mormon" as a derogatory term, and none of that was beneficial anyway.  I shouldn't try to classify people as either "Mormon" or "Saint".  That doesn't help me see the best in people.  We all have weaknesses and I need to look for the good.  I have since learned this is charity, which "is kind" and "thinketh no evil".  I shouldn't think the worst.  And it helps me to not classify individuals or even groups in to anything that my mind might perceive as derogatory (e.g. "Utah Mormon", "white trash", etc. ).
 
I do acknowledge that real pain and hurt can come from some people.  They can be hard to deal with.  And it's OK to recognize bad behavior.  But, remember to not let some people's behavior unfairly affect how we feel about others.

Over twenty years ago when I first learned the term "Utah Mormon" at BYU I took it to mean what you describe; not necessarily people who are from UT.  I quickly decided that since "Utah Mormons" are not exclusive to UT and not everybody from UT is a "Utah Mormon" I needed a better term.  I ended up using "Mormon".  In my mind the term "Mormon" was derogatory, as opposed to a "Saint" or "Christian" which meant members of the Church trying to live their religion.
 
A short while later I realized I didn't like using "Mormon" as a derogatory term, and none of that was beneficial anyway.  I shouldn't try to classify people as either "Mormon" or "Saint".  That doesn't help me see the best in people.  We all have weaknesses and I need to look for the good.  I have since learned this is charity, which "is kind" and "thinketh no evil".  I shouldn't think the worst.  And it helps me to not classify individuals or even groups in to anything that my mind might perceive as derogatory (e.g. "Utah Mormon", "white trash", etc. ).
 
I do acknowledge that real pain and hurt can come from some people.  They can be hard to deal with.  And it's OK to recognize bad behavior.  But, remember to not let some people's behavior unfairly affect how we feel about others.

What do you want me to say? What would you consider discussion? Oh, yeah I'm totally a harshly critical, self-centered, cold and haughty person? I totally put people down on here all the time, I love to show off my superior gospel knowledge, I go looking for a fight in every thread, and don't bother to carefully read people's posts before I respond? Nope, not gonna happen. That's the opposite of how I operate here and in all my other online discussions. 
 
But you want me to do better. So.. here goes. Some people are jerks, some of those jerks are LDS. In my experience, there are a lot of LDS jerks in wards in Utah. Why might this be? Is it that I'm only imagining this because I am overly sensitive? Not likely, I spent my high school and college years in a ward that was pretty good at ridiculing those who didn't meet their standards. Got my thick skin years ago. But it's worse in Utah, at least in my experience and the experience of most of my former high school peers, and all of my many cousins who attended college in Utah and began to put down roots here. And nevermind me.. how about the experiences of enough other people that the term was ever able to have about and to be so widely understood? I don't think the burden of proof is on me here. A few of you have a real problem with the term and have taken our use of it quite personally. If that's because you feel equally repulsed by all over-generalizations then okay, more power to you I guess. If its because you live in Utah and love it, then good for you, you're one of the lucky ones. I haven't met any of the users here in person but I'm quite certain from the past several months of participation and lurking on this forum that at least a couple of you are the exact definition of the term you so despise. Maybe not in real life, but then that hardly makes it better does it? If you're allowing all of your sanctimonious frustration to come out online against other strangers because its a safe, anonymous place to do so? So you try to refute the experience, the frustration and sometimes hurt, by saying that it is all imagined or blown way out of proportion. Or that it is borne of oversensitivity, bigotry, or best of all, hypocrisy. See why it's so hard to have a discussion? No ones feelings or experience can count for anything unless they are approved of by Their Eminences. Otherwise the thread will be drowned in criticism and rebukes.. oh and their hurt feelings. The only feelings that apparently need no justification or explanation around here. 

Mormons have as much desire as anyone to discuss the deeper issues, and far more ability than most. But many people consider the trivial, mechanistic nonsense of religion as being the "deeper issues".
 
Platonism and traditional philosophy will never lead you to the deeper things of the Spirit. These are given by God to those who have prepared themselves. Worldly learning is of little or no consequence in understanding the deeper things.

perhaps we should ask what are we supposed to forget?
I would put forth that it is not the event itself we are to forget, but the desire for any sort of vengence, debt, justice things of that nature that one assumes is incurred when one is sinned against.