SpiritDragon

I'm in a similar predicament - only I've had an aversion to Sunday and going to church all of my life. I've always associated it with being a wasted day that I can't do anything enjoyable. Only now with a ten month old who will only nap at home and needs to nap about ten minutes before Sacrament meeting is through and doesn't wake up until 10 minutes before Sacrament meeting starts and is grumpy if waken early (it takes 15 minutes to get to church) let's just say that my lifelong struggle with the Sabbath has become exponentially greater. My wife and I get nothing out of suffering through going and can't stay, and yet we keep trying hoping one day we'll get a different result - isn't that about the definition of insanity. You're certainly not alone, I think all new parents go through this to some extent.

I thought this was interesting from lds.org Pornography: Pornography is any depiction, in pictures or writing, that is intended to inappropriately arouse sexual feelings. Pornography is more prevalent in today’s world than ever before. It may be found in written material (including romance novels), photographs, movies, electronic images, video games, social media posts, phone apps, erotic telephone conversations, music, or any other medium. I feel that the men may be unfairly typecast as the primary ones who struggle with this affliction - I've never heard the romance novel position over the pulpit at conference but it is by this definition indeed pornography.

Even without the sex - I wonder if just the fantasizing about romance isn't somewhat harmful in some ways. Supposing a woman is reading about a man who has all of these different empathetic qualities and knows just what to say and so on and so forth that she wishes her significant other had more of and so on - is it not a little bit of emotional fantasy straying into territory one should guard against, sort of emotional lusting or cheating (would you look at it differently if there was a romance going on over social media with no actual sex). Could these soft-core romance novels not be a gateway to harder stuff. It seems to me like saying looking at the sports illustrated swim suit edition or a lingerie catalogue isn't pornographic because no one is naked or having sex... and maybe it isn't pornographic by definition, but it's certainly territory one should be wary of.

@DoctorLemon perhaps this other forums take on it will be of interest to you - non LDS perspective of course: http://boards.weddingbee.com/topic/porn-vs-romance-novels/ it appears based on this sample that there is plenty of agreement on the idea that romance novels are indeed similar to porn but at a level more appealing to women. Men being more visual would like to see a beautiful woman. Ladies apparently like to fantasize about men emotionally. I've never dug into any hard science on the matter.

You don't have to beat around the bush, Gator, I can take it - just say my name when you're talking about me

Chances are very good you wouldn't.... stranded on a desert island with only these two choices. It's simply a hypothetical to contrast the two. As Gator mentioned we're all sinners - and Lehi is also correct that these decisions have implications on generations. I'm just curious to see how men think about this. It is very obviously a play on the other thread for the ladies where I've been shocked to discover that the ladies at my last reading unanimously were in favour of the former fornicator and/or adulterer over the porn addict who's been clean presumably for over a year. I just found it shocking and wanted to see how the men would respond. Now clearly it's debatable whether it's a fair comparison to use trashy novels in place of trashy magazines or videos - but it seems to be the way women prefer to indulge in my experience so I chose a problem that is likely as endemic among the ladies as the porn among the men.

Does your perspective change if A) is LDS the whole time and B) is a convert who hasn't had chastity issues since her baptism?

Assuming you're in love with the ladies in question and all things being equal except for the difference in the poll. Also these differences are clearly mutually exclusive - the one doesn't read escapist smut and the other has never slept around. Please share your perspective and why.

That would certainly appear to be the case. i do wonder however what the likelihood is of a man being so open to sexual activity with so many women while not also accessing pornographic material.

I can appreciate where you're coming from on this issue to a certain extent. I totally understand not being interested in debating. Sometimes it just seems like making any post isn't worth it because of the potential for things being twisted and taken out of context, or downright hostility. Even when done civilly it can sometimes just be exhausting to rehash the same thing over and over to clarify it from six different perspectives. You're right of course that it's not really possible to answer the hypothetical.

I'm still surprised. What can I say?

Are options A and B mutually exclusive? It looks like they are two sides of the same coin possibly. Also was either in a relationship at the time? So far I'm frankly surprised that the poll is choosing 100% the guy actually having sex with multiple partners over the porn user. I assume we have to be operating on the idea that the one only has sex, but never views porn and the other only views porn but never has sex (though presumably something else happens while watching?) If history is to be the best indicator of future failings would you rather a husband that sleeps with other women in his weakness over one that stops at fantasizing about it? Perhaps it's also the numbers: is the suggestion of 40 pornos just too much higher than 10+ women? Did he only sleep with each once or was he doing so frequently and possibly with multiple partners at the same time? ie history of cheating. Do opinions change if the question is reframed to a man who has viewed 10 pornographic movies (of less than five minute duration - strip teases) and a man who has had ten plus partners without cheating on any of them - just burns through women? Let me just re-express my personal surprise at these results - does he have kids? could he have kids he doesn't know of? Um, yeah... the STD issue... that's really preferable to the possible (and likely) return of addiction at some point. I mean clearly neither is ideal, but doesn't the one involving other people automatically carry more baggage? What if it turns out that one of the women he has been with with ends up at his work place or in your ward. (just to be clear I'm not trying to change anyone's mind or judging these votes thus far, I'm just shocked and expressing some of why I'm shocked)

Happy to share a thought or two and all the more so when it is found useful. I'd certainly still love to hear JAG weigh in - as I said I can't speak for him, and he may have a completely different take than I do.

I can't speak for JAG,LP - but I can say that as a Canadian following what's going on in the States it's just bizarre to see how the current President and the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party can say actually racist things and openly support a racist group in BLM and yet the Republicans and especially the man at the helm this election cycle are painted as racist because of wanting to be tough on immigration. The left may not be "endorsing" communism or radical Islamism per se, but they are careful not to suggest they're problematic either. They also seem to have policies designed to encourage their spread. Look at the syrian refugee situation - clearly we want to help the innocent and oppressed, but it doesn't have to put westerners at risk on mass scale by inviting people into the country that cannot possibly be properly screened for security. This is about making a politcal show of caring, without doing anything to solve the underlying problem. The left (from the top - not necessarily the supporters who may be duped) are the ones who find a victim in everything and make everyone out to be a victim - except of course white christian males. They are using racial tensions and gender issues, LBGT issues to create a split in the nation so that the republicans look like monsters and can be dehumanized and can't possibly be trying to improve the country.

I'd dare say the inconsistency kicks in because the Asian privilege notion doesn't fit the narrative of the oppressive white christian. sort of like down-playing the role of indentured servants (essentially slaves) who're white in American history. Only the oppressed black slave piece fits the narrative that the academicians who censor history and the leftist media want told. My goodness during the second world war we rounded up the Japanese and sent them to POW camps, but they moved on (quickly - within the same generation) and are not the welfare class crying for handouts from those who work because of the wrongs done to their great great grandparents. Clearly they had the cultural spirit to work hard and move past what was done. Other cultures (not races) haven't been able to let go of the past and encourage laziness as a way of life.This culture of laziness may be more prevalent in certain races, but as for your qualifiers - I agree it is cultural not racial.

Well said - a little long to read, but sometimes it takes quite a few words to articulate a point. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Doesn't this potentially make the point that racial privilege doesn't exist for anyone? (I'm not saying it does or doesn't) But if the reason Asians are more successful in a somewhat capitalistic society because of hard work and good family values - does it not stand to reason that any other group of people could do the same? Is it not very possible, if not plausible that the disparity between races is due not to discrimination against particular races by the others, but by the social climate particular groups of people are raised in. On a side note, is there no poverty in Asia??? Obviously there is plenty - and I doubt it has much to do with people being unwilling to work and such. But it leads me to wonder if only the highly driven and successful Asians make it to America, thus skewing these measures in their favour. Are we more likely to deport illegal immigrants from Asia than other places?

I hope to get back to answering your GMO processing question in the near future - I've got a lot on the go and haven't had time to bang out an appropriate response for you. I can say quickly that I don't mind cross-breeding that occurs naturally, and I'm not in favour of transgenesis - to be honest I'm not terribly familiar with all the others. My main reasons for opposing transgenesis include not trusting that once we alter genes by introducing other genus and species genes that could not naturally intermingle otherwise that we could end up with unforeseen consequences. For instance once a genetically modified plant is outside the lab there is every possibility that it can contaminate other plants, I'm also concerned that by using these types of crops we are losing diversity within specific crops. Something like 93-96% of certain crops like corn and soy are supposedly GMO variants to my understanding - what if a blight comes along and knocks them all out and we are left without any viable crop options because they have simply taken over too far with one very specific plant type bred for consistency and resistance to many known issues, when along comes a new trouble and blind-sides it. Plant evolution seems to dictate that diversity is best and different variants help to perpetuate the species. I also question the health aspect - it seems like the main "study" being done is to monitor for effects in the population consuming them. And as always, although this isn't necessarily limited to transgenics, I don't like food being controlled by patent. I think it puts a lot of power into a corporations hand to be able to control the food supply.

I did actually read through (or at least skim through) quite few of your links before posting. I appreciate the heads up that organic farming is not where it should be, and yet that is no surprise when done in the large scale setting. I've never really trusted the big-chain store brands boasting an organic label. The organic I trust is locally grown (yes I know local doesn't mean organic or vice versa) and I can tour the farm and watch the process from field to fridge if I desire. I should also clarify that I'm generally far more interested in buying local produce than I am organic, but if it happens to be both and at a competitive price I don't complain. I have no specific vested interest in the institute of science in society or their website. I posted the link because it articulates points of concern for me such as Monsanto's patenting seeds and suing farmers for using seed when they never bought any from Monsanto in the first place. I just don't agree with the idea that food should be patentable and a corporation owns the rights to seeds making it so farmers can not harvest and use their own seed. I understand why they do it, but I don't agree with it. This does also play into my point though - You see I could now go on a tirade about how biased and worthless anything Stephen Barrett and his Quackwatch ilk put out, but I just don't care enough to spend the time. He is clearly biased and bias gets in the way of good science, of course you now that, right? I'll just say that for the intended purpose of alerting consumers of potential health dangers, they sure fail to mention when pharmaceuticals like VIOXX and paracetomol/acetaminophen were/are causing dangers to the public and in higher quantities and orders of magnitude than taking a multivitamin ever has or will. I also don't understand the conflation of being interested in the quality of food to mean that one is anti-science or only those who are homeopathy pushers would be interested in figuring out what methods of supplying food will be sustainable and safe with sufficent yield(FWIW I don't believe in homeopathy). As I've already stated I eat conventionally grown food more often than not, my main reason for choosing organic is to avoid GMOs, I'm plenty happy to see the non-GMO label as well - or to buy foods that are not commercially genetically modified

While I personally don't go out of my way to buy organic, I will do so if the price is close to the non-organic options. I firmly believe that the benefits of eating fruits and vegetables out-weighs the risks of consuming pesticides, herbicides and so on. That being said I like to check into the EWG's dirty dozen list and do prefer to get these items organically, but I will still get them conventionally if the organic price is over 10-15% higher. Clearly organic standards aren't as stringent as they could be and mean different things to different certifying bodies. One thing that the organic label is useful for is helping to avoid genetically modified food. Sure you can argue that food has been being bred into genetic modification as long as agriculture has existed, but I simply don't see this as the same thing as splicing fish DNA into a tomato for instance. Monsanto does make me sick. I am all for them having the right to produce food the way they want to, but I don't agree that anyone should be able to patent foods and destroy farmers - especially when they are going after people who've had their crops infiltrated by monsanto's crop (and they have taken lengths to keep their crop pure). http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MonsantovsFarmers.php For me this makes enough of a case for me to want to avoid supporting biotech, by casting my financial vote away from their products. However at the end of the day those who want to believe that science is firmly on their side will do so and possibly feel a sense of justified superiority for having such great scientifically analytic minds and not letting emotions cloud their judgment. I've come to decide that science is similar to religion and politics - you can find studies to support whatever it is you believe, and with enough money you can shape public opinion about what the "facts" are. Not that I 'm saying science is useless, I just don't trust a lot of what comes out as being considered scientific anymore. There is so much suppression of data in certain areas and over the top hype in others - in fact it seems that science is swayed by politics and obviously economics. The direction the wind is blowing (and the funding) is the direction studies are designed to come up with favourable findings. My point here being that I'm not interested in having a fight with anyone about my different viewpoint on this issue. I can see based on the general attitude here that I am a dissenting voice and sense the tone of even the original post to suggest that my sanity must be in question because I don't love Monsanto and I must be stupid to pay even a penny more for something that is labeled organic. Well let me just say that my sanity has never been questioned by my doctor - I graduated college with a 4.0 GPA and my IQ suggests that in any given group of 600 people I'm likely to be the smartest, or that I'm highly gifted and possibly genius - I feel funny saying this and don't do so to brag, just to make the point that people with different views don't have to be stupid or insane. For any interested in some articles looking at the other side a little, enjoy these select few of the many I could dig up, but as I've mentioned it's a pointless endeavour as we can all go back and forth with findings that match more closely to our individual perceptions and values. http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-herbicide-not-less/#5a3e7b07a371 http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4060

2 Timothy 4:3 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; Prophetic!

It's nice of you to be so clear on where you stand and why. I have to say that I feel the concept of many sins utterly repulsive, while I am admittedly drawn to others. However I'm also not convinced that perfected beings are free of all temptation, although it's certainly possible and even hopeful that complete freedom from temptation would one day exist. I just also can't rule out the idea that temptation is eternal. There must be opposition in all things - we fought for agency and so on. Thus in the eternities it certainly seems possible that temptations will still exist, but the understanding of the sorrow they bring will be perfect and the choice will easy - likely because it's already been made so many times before. My point here is that to become like our Saviour might not require that we are never tempted (after all we have record of Him being tempted as well) but that we choose the better part. So I can not only sympathize with, but admire, those who avoid sinful thoughts and actions despite being tempted otherwise. This is perhaps the stickiest part - separating temptations from thoughts. Supposing the pedophile has an attraction to children just as I do for women, but chooses not to think about it - doesn't let his mind ever go there, is that not admirable self discipline. Now suppose the person slipped up once or twice (in thought only) and prayed night and day for deliverance from these impure thoughts, is that not also admirable? I'm also curious about your take on physical infirmities. Do you consider mental illness something that is chosen? Is it not completely possible that a predisposition to unnatural sexual attraction is as much due to something being not right in the brain as it is in the depressed, or the schizophrenic? I know it's not popular these days but "treatments" have been available for these kinds of sexual dysfunctions in the past. Clearly I'm not arguing for accepting the behaviour - or even accepting the disorder as okay. But is it wrong to admit to a weakness and resist it?

To my understanding there is little clearly spelled out doctrinally on this. Generally I think that people either look at these qualities as natural predisposition inherent to premortal intelligence - or simply a byproduct of the Fall.

While I must say that I am in the camp that believes these things to be physical/mental infirmities that will go away in the eternities, your statement has lead me to a similar question; will heterosexuals no longer have heterosexual desires? It doesn't really add up that this desire would be gone, just under control - as in within the bounds the Lord has set - following the rules of Celestial law. Is it likely that other perfected Goddesses will be attractive? It seems obvious they will, but the perfected beings won't be ruled by the desires of the flesh.

This reminds me of listening to Dr. Joel Fuhrman talk about raising his kids eating a nutrient dense diet for optimal health. His kids were known to see other kids eating doughnuts and other junk food and asking their dad why people would let their kids do that - don't their parents love them? Why would they put them at risk of diabetes and heart disease and future cancers by eating this poison - He'd explain that it wasn't that their parents didn't love them but that they didn't know better, or at least didn't appreciate the importance of it enough to change. I'd suggest that the kids that are not homeschooled have parents that either cannot homeshool, believe the public school system (or private/chartered school I suppose) is better for their family situation and good enough - possibly even better than if they homeschooled - not everyone is cut out to be a teacher. Now as for feeling bad about the situation - I think it's normal to feel a little bad, but you shouldn't really. It's almost as if you're feeling bad because you're kids are secure in why they are doing what they're doing and feel bad that they are while others are not. This seems almost like survivors regret, where you wish you'd not been the one to survive a catastrophic event because others didn't. As for helping other kids in the ward to feel more loved by their parents? That is largely their parents responsibility to sort out. Do the other parents know that their children feel this way?