The Folk Prophet

By severe I mean a perception of severe, just as you described. If a counselor feels it is important....

I have never once said it was simply about self-control or discipline or that it was just about sex. If you are going to take the things I say and build strawmen out of them we are guaranteed miscommunication.

Sure I did. Here's the part that addressed it: "...difficult, painful repentance..." I think you missed the question mark at the end of my sentence. What are you accusing my "cough syrup" to be? Because as I re-read through my posts with your accusations in mind, the only medicine I've suggested is the Atonement and repentance.

The experience will not be the same for anyone. Everyone's relationship with the Lord is their own, and the Lord knows what they need. Some get an answer easy. Some struggle with it. But the Lord has promised us that if we will sincerely seek, we shall find. Consider James 1:5, and then consider Moroni 10:3-5 (as estradling75 suggested). In my case, having been born into a Mormon family, I had grown up on the Book of Mormon and stories of Joseph Smith. When I finally got serious about knowing I did pretty much just as you said. I knelt down and said, essentially "Is this true?" I received a witness from the Holy Spirit in response, and since that time have received that powerful witness again and again. I advocate the study of archaeology behind the Book of Mormon. It's fascinating. It will support one's faith. But if one approaches it from a negative point of view, it can also tear down faith, just like the anti-bible claims. As with all matters of faith, the "proofs" out there can tear it down or support it. The Lord does not intend for us to have proof of that nature because it would be destroyed by His standard that we live by faith. So I do not think the Book of Mormon will ever be proven to be true (and the Bible as well). The Lord wants us to seek him in faith.

How is my position lacking empathy? I have not diminished the difficulty of freeing oneself from pornography's clutches or whitewashed the power of it's grip. But my empathy or lack thereof doesn't have anything to do with the fact of how sinful it is or is not. A covenant is a covenant and breaking it is breaking it. Stating this to be so has nothing to do with empathy. Stating otherwise would be incorrect. When I viewed pornography (and, let's be clear, this was not a one time thing. I was very much in it's clutches for many years) I was breaking my covenants. The only path back was through sincere, difficult, painful repentance and the power of the Atonement. I understand that and I advocate it. This viewpoint is not a lack of empathy. What about my opinion that porn use is ultimately about sex upsets you? It's more shameful for it to be about sex than it is to be just about a general lack of control? If we agree that it's not okay to view pornography, wherein is there such contempt towards whether it's about sex or not? Is that view harming people. How so? Say I acquiesce entirely to your argument. Let's say it's driven by stress. Okay. So...now what? Someone addicted to porn now feels better about themselves? Repentance is easier? What's the great battle won there? You're response is as if you're standing up against the wicked lies of the enemy horde. It's a bit melodramatic really. The whole driven by sex or not thing is really quite irrelevant, and because I believe it to be so doesn't really mean much. So why does this infuriate you?

Not to mention the giant monsters and robots fighting each other.

Wherein do you think that anyone unapologetic about the nature of a sin must never have experienced it? You may claim your perception of other's experience and knowledge must be superior to mine. You're free to that opinion. Maybe it's even true. But when you tell me I can't understand something because I haven't experienced it, when in actuality I have experienced it, you quickly lose credibility. So spare me.

Just watched it. I did not care for the music. I mean, it was fine...just wrong for the content. When the snare kicked in toward the end it was highly distracting. I think the music hurt it. Different music could have set a very different mood. I've noticed that the church has started using very different styles of music in their videos. In most cases I think it has been successful and worked. In this case...not so much.

Plus, 7 is nothing. I have a sister with 10.

I would pose the same question back to you concerning your beliefs. How can you be so sure that Moses was a prophet, had a vision, and didn't just make up his stories in the bible? It's a matter of faith. As you will learn in exploring The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we strongly believe in personal revelation. They reason I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that the Book of Mormon was not made up by him is because I took the matter to the Lord and asked. Lack of evidence is not evidence. There are various apologetic explanations for things, as varied as the questions, but it comes down to the same matter as the previous question. There are archaeological evidences of the Book of Mormon and there are archaeological unknowns. Archaeology is not the reason that I believe the Book of Mormon to be true. Because I know the book is true through my faith, I can look for what archaeological evidences there are for support, and I can not stress too much about the things that have not been found yet. Amos 3:7. If there are no prophets, God will do anything. So, no prophets = God doing nothing. What verses in the bible say there will be no prophets after Jesus? I presume you refer to the parable in Matt 21? Short answer, we do not believe in the tradition of the trinity. We believe that when the bible speaks of God and Jesus being one that it means one in purpose. There is no teaching anywhere that speaks of God living on another planet. We do believe in deification, but...well...read this. Becoming Like God. Enjoy it. There's nothing too overwhelming about it. Just listen and learn and try to be sensitive to the Spirit.

I honestly don't know the answer to this. My feelings tend towards conflicting ideas. On one side, benefit of the doubt. On the other, skepticism. I accept that this guy's manner and approach is significantly better than scathing accusations of racism. So I'm in line with your thinking in that regard. But I am also of the mind that it is indeed a tactic. Maybe a better way to put it -- Kindness is not kindness if it's pretend. Then it is nothing more than a deception. A lie. So... maybe I'm sensing a lie. ??? Maybe I'm judging it too harshly. Either way, I accept that our response should be to give him the benefit of the doubt when engaged in dialog with him and others like him. But I don't think that means it is inappropriate to state a skepticism in a separate forum with others.

Possibly. Half truths are one of Satan's most powerful tools. And diplomacy is always beneficial. I see this as diplomacy. It gives a way in for those who, as he stated, refuse to even have the dialog because they are accused of racism. It opens up opportunities for some consideration of homosexuality and gay-marriage that might otherwise not be open. Yes, I agree, the tactic could be considered biblical. How many organizations and leaders through the ages have picked and chosen from certain biblical principles to sway their followers to an evil end though? Good and evil are not so black-and-white. Should we view every kind approach as good? If I am kindly swaying you to murder your brother, does it qualify as praiseworthy?

I confess a bit of thread-jacking. But I think a clarification of what it means to not judge is always in order, as it seems to be somewhat universally misunderstood, if not by you, then by others perchance reading the thread. I feel like there's a semantic debate coming on here, which is not going to be useful. When it comes down to it, once we worked out all the words and meanings, I'd guess we mostly agree. However, I'd say the whole, no pleasure whatsoever but still turn to it, thing is more rare than common. And that goes for food or porn or what-have-you. Most over-eaters very much enjoy the food. Most porn consumption is based in enjoyment of the media as it relates to libido and sex. I don't think extreme cases should be used as the baseline for understanding. That being said, I have no statistical studies in hand to back my p.o.v. Of course if I did have them in hand, I would be skeptical of their validity when it comes to pornography. It's just too surrounded by Satan's lies and misdirection to trust much of what even any experts or statistics claim about it. The prevailing world-p.o.v., for example, is that a certain level of porn and MB can actually be healthy. Double thumbs up.

Hmm. Word of Wisdom. Didn't think of that. A medical marijuana suggestion? ??? Like I said, lack of detail makes it hard to advise.

We're talking libido though, right? Strength of libido is no excuse to action. It's as simple as that. Beyond that, it's impossible to advise specifically because of the lack of detail. I mean, what would you advise if I said I was on a medication that was making me feel homicidal? Go ahead? Kill a few people, it will make you feel better? Of course not. The fact that your doc doesn't see certain actions as sinful does not make those actions acceptable to the Lord.

I see this article as simply another tactic. He strongly advocates for gay marriage and the acceptance of homosexuality, he simply defers to the fact that there are valid long-held reasons for the entrenchment against it that will take time to overcome, and notes that playing the race card is counterproductive to the war that is clearly already being won by gay marriage advocates.

What are you looking for? Advice that it's okay to sin because of medication you are on? I'm not seeing anyone advising you that way. Moreover, your details are too vague to truly advise. What is the medication you are on? What is it's purpose? Why can't the medicine be changed or reduced. Details matter.

I guess it kind of depends on what's meant by "normal". We definitely want people to be able to relate, and not feel like we are so foreign that they cannot relate at all. But we also want them drawn to us because of our differences -- because they see greater spirituality, greater family strength, greater levels of service, etc. In the strictest sense of the word, as the world becomes more and more corrupt, Mormons should be seen as more and more abnormal, but that abnormality should be a refuge to those who see through the lies of the "normal" corrupt world. In today's world there is certainly still a level of cross-over between what is normal to the world and what is Mormon. The divide is growing though, day by day. Certainly Mormon's application of chastity is not normal. Certainly the Word of Wisdom is not normal. Even things like faithful weekly church attendance are less and less normal. Maybe there needs to be a clarification of what is abnormal, but not odd, and that which is viewed as truly odd. One can be abnormally kind, for example, Not normal. But usually people don't look at excessive kindness as odd. Mormons should be abnormal. But they should not be coming across as odd, strange, weird, etc..

I wonder on this. I certainly don't have a broad enough experience to say for sure (though I do have a fairly broad experience as I travel for work a lot). I think this to be true if and when the person has cigarette in hand -- especially when standing between me and the entrance of the store I'm trying to access. I'll admit to some nasty glares. However, take that same person in the store and (assuming I didn't already cause an issue with the glare) I will interact with that person the same as anyone else, friendly-like and all. Now, yes, when I look out my front window and the neighbor kid is smoking in front of his house -- the same neighbor kid who was blessing the Sacrament a week back -- yeah...a bit of frustration, annoyance and disapproval...for sure. But, the next time I see him, I'm friendly. So, yeah...not sure. Sorry....thread jack. :)

This is an oversimplification of what we are and are not to do. The scriptures teach a much richer concept of judgment than a platitude ("Judge not"). In point of fact, we are taught that we should judge, but righteously. Of course we have to understand that there is variety in the meaning of judgment, even scripturally, We are meant to judge in terms of assessment, choice, action, feelings, thoughts, etc. We are not meant to judge in terms of condemnation, hatred, bitterness, arrogance, etc.. Concerning the first, we cannot "not" judge. Not judging requires a judgment. Closing one's eyes in blindness under the generic "judge not" umbrella is not appropriate. We are meant to see, to understand, to choose, to do, to follow, to reprove, to call to repentance, to succor, etc., etc. These things all require judgment. Pornography is always about sex. I could accept your sentence if you had put the word "all" or something akin. (Pornography is not always all about sex.) Comfort food is still about eating, even if it's not all about eating. Alcoholism is still about, well...alcohol. Pornography is still about sex, even if there are other factors at play. Stress, and the like, may be a trigger. But a trigger is not the core fuel. Moreover, non-loathing, pleasure and excitement are not the defining criteria of what makes something about sex. At it's core, pornography is the depiction of sexual things. There is no separation of sex from it.

This ties into the discussion on Mormon's being normal or not. I understand the point of the I'm a Mormon campaign, and the objective is not to show what an average Mormon is like. The objective is to intrigue people about the church. Using interesting people to that end does make sense. Undoubtedly, those ads do not show what an average, everyday Mormon is. Most of us are not rock stars, basketball greats, CEOs, etc. But the world looks to these sorts of things as desirable, and hence the approach. The "I'm the most average person in the word...and I'm a Mormon" approach is interesting though. Might turn some away from it, might turn some towards it.

It's not subjective. But it is not really a good question for testing the depth of someone's knowledge. It's pretty entry level. A great question for a new member. Per the OP, they have stated they are fairly well read and want to be tested in that. So we jumped directly to our best effort at difficult questions. That being said, there are concepts within this question that are a bit more complicated that might work better to the original intent of the OP as I understand it: Why is the family the core unit of the gospel? Wherein can we only have fullness of joy through family? Etc.

So after having read the article on Deseret News I thought, "Yeah, OK. I get it." Kind of reminds me of the church's I'm a Mormon campaign. After looking over the blog... Well, in principle I still get it. But the blog bugged me. I can't say for sure why. Maybe it was the cavalier and comical approach. I don't know for sure. Maybe it's just my mood. I don't begrudge them their approach though. It may well be a great way to get people interested in the church. Ultimately I stand by my first comment. If the world isn't seeing peculiarity in a Mormon, the Mormon isn't doing something right. And I would not approach the gospel from a primary stand-point of being normal first because it's ultimately a setup dependent on deception. The Re-organized church (Community of Christ) fell into this trap, and little by little over the years have compromised and compromised to be more and more normal until they are hardly distinguishable from any run-of-the-mill Christian denomination. We should be distinguishable. Now I know that's not ultimately the point of the blog. But the approach skirts the line of it close enough that it kind of bugs me...barely. I'm not really "bugged". That's too strong of a word. I just didn't latch onto it.

I can get behind reasoning like this. The formal protest.... Well...that's another thread and don't want to hijack. :)

Yeah, the link doesn't go to a blog. But as to the question -- if the world sees and LDS person as entirely normal then it's probably an indication that there's something amiss with said LDS person, IMO.