The Folk Prophet

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.

I agree with you. But they still need the atonement because of spiritual and physical death. Spiritual corruption is something else entirely and impossible before accountability kicks in.

You have a black-and-white view (which is typical) of judgment. I can see porn addiction as selfish and perverted without seeing is as "just" selfish and perverted. Judging a sin to be a sin does not counter everything else. I pay my tithing. That's good. I also have too much debt. That's bad. I can judge that my debt is bad and my tithe paying as good. Most people can. I don't believe that people are quite as simplistic in their judgments as you are making them out to be. *shrug* I could be wrong, of course, but my experience is that most people, when you get to know them, understand quite well that nobody is perfect, and that the fact that a person is bad with money does not define them, or that a person who views porn has nothing else good about them. The fact that I don't buy that guys are looking at porn because they're coping with stress rather than for prurient reasons does not mean I see them as nothing but pervs. Yes, though, I do see your point. There is a level of "that guy's a ____________" (whatever sin you know of that guy) that worsens as the sin worsens. We are more likely to define a pedophile as nothing more than a pedophile than we are to define a non-tithe payer as nothing but a non-tithe payer. But this is not a church culture thing. This is a people thing. People outside the church do it to. They simple don't define all things as wrong that we do. But the things they do define as wrong...same problem. That guy's a thief. That guy's a pedophile. That guy's a tax evader. Etc. It's not a church culture problem, and it is not something that should be blamed on the church or on church culture. And the solution to it is certainly not to downplay the severity of something like pornography.

You're arguing with word play. It's not meaningful. Little children are separated from God when they come to earth life. Therefore they suffer from spiritual death. It's the literal definition of spiritual death. It's factual. They also suffer from mortality and, eventually, physical death. You're scripture quote does not negate the literal meanings of spiritual and physical death. You would have to prove that little children are still in the presence of God to make your argument fly.

So, as a matter of interest, do you really think there is universal judgment by the church members, or do you think that perhaps it is more a perception of universal judgement by those feeling judged. I say this in that I have been on both sides of the coin, many times. I have felt judged, and I have been accused of judging. In most cases where I am accused of judging I am, actually, quite empathetic, having experienced sin and the begging for mercy (rather consistently, I might add). It is my view that the church, at large, does much less judging than it is accused of, and that the perception of judgment is significantly higher than the reality. Accordingly there is a defensive response that is excessively nonproportional to the problem.

Yes. that was my take on her point. And I adamantly disagree. Normal is defined by what is common. But healthy? I think that's a stretch. I do not believe that for a second. What is counterproductive to healing is anyone not turning to Christ. Beyond that, to claim that a wife should "ho-hum" their husband's (and within the church, Priesthood holder's) use of pornography does not help. I simply do not buy the, stop-treating-sin-like-it's-a-big-deal-and-everything-will-improve approach. An LDS temple-married husband's use of pornography is a betrayal of his marriage and priesthood covenants. It is a VERY big deal. As to your point, however, I also believe that any wife who threatened to leave their husband over such an issue is in jeopardy of betraying her marriage covenants as well. So, yeah...some overreact. That is not what the church teaches or what anyone should be taking away from the church's teachings on pornography. I have never heard anyone preach that a wife should divorce their husband over pornography. Anyone who is taking that away is misguided as well. And anyone preaching that should be severely reprimanded and corrected.

Sin is irrelevant to it. Little children suffer from both physical death and spiritual death when they leave the pre-existence and must be redeemed from both.

I can confess reading stuff into what you said. I think your original comment implied such, whether you meant it to or not. I do not think the church culture is making mountains out of molehills. Do some? Sure. As I said to MrShorty, exceptions do not define criteria for the rule. Someone responding irrationally to the LDS culture does not make the LDS culture mistaken, it makes the person(s) responding irrationally mistaken. Anyone treating the viewing of porn as if they went on a murderous rampage is overreacting to something beyond what they should. However, anyone viewing porn, even for 10 seconds, as if there is nothing to blink an eye at is also mistaken. So...fair enough. I read into your comments. I read into it an accusation of LDS culture that I felt was unfair. If you did not mean to accuse, I apologize to you personally, but still feel justified in "running with it", as you say, because the clarification, if nothing else, was appropriate. That being said, the "Are you kidding me" tone was probably less than ideal either way.

We are clearly taught the purpose of our agency in the scriptures. For example 2 Nephi 2:27 and in other places. More specifically, the term commonly used by the leaders nowadays is "moral agency", which is very definitely specific to salvation or damnation. If the choice to eat a Big Mac is not a moral issue then it does not involve moral agency. If it does involved a moral choice, then it does play into the person's potential salvation and damnation. I would contend that the usage of the word agency in the church (or, as sometimes used "free-agency") is exclusive to moral agency and has nothing to do with meaningless choices. I think that is clearly inherent in the myriad of teachings on agency. Finally, and more importantly, agency may not be taken away from us. We only lose our agency by giving it up through wrong choices. The choice to eat a Big Mac or not can, actually, be taken away from us by other men through a variety of means. This, in and of itself, tells me that such a choice has nothing to do with agency. Here's a great article on agency by Dallin H. Oaks. Note the first point under part II. Application.

It's a good thought, but it's also presuming something that I do not believe to be universally true -- that is, that the church and it's members dialog is promoting some sort of sweeping depression, resignation, etc... Satan, of course, would promote such a response to any of God's principles and words, no matter how they are spoken. So I agree with the principle you've stated, but I do not agree that the church and it's members attitude towards the dangers of pornography and the like are prompting some sort of mass depression across its membership. But even if such a blanket depression existed, I would look to Satan's principles as the culprit rather than God and the church's. To me the culture of "don't feel shame", "you're not to blame", "it's not that big of a deal", "the church is overreacting", etc., etc., is more likely to influence these negative responses in people than the truth -- that sin is, in actuality, a big deal. These sorts of statements teach people that the church is oppressive to them, and thereby encourages depressive ideologies. Whereas the church teaches the only true means to joy -- which is repentance and faith on Jesus Christ.

Such as?

Well, "freak" was her word, of course. What I'm taking exception to is a concept. Specifically: "Non-LDS don't blink at porn & MB... But LDS-culture freaks, I posit, again because of the novelty." The implication being that we, also, shouldn't blink at porn and MB? Or that we somehow shouldn't take them as seriously as we do. As if the the only reason we have to be highly concerned with people looking at porn is because it's a novelty for us. I don't think so. Moreover, the whole idea that shame is unhealthy and that removing shame would somehow fix the problems is misguided. If a person has involved themselves in something shameful they should feel shame. Taking away the shame of it is not going to help people feel "godly sorrow". They're not mutually exclusive one to another. And removing the shame is more likely to enable the negative behavior than to help them feel "godly sorrow". Anyhow, what are you saying godly sorrow is that shame is not? Disappointing one's parents is not a valid motivation, but disappointing God is? The church and it's members have no responsibility to alleviate people's feelings of guilt for sin. The leaders of the church will continue to warn against the dangers of sin, as they should, and we should support and sustain them in this, as well as warning others just as adamantly. Ultimately, my contention, is that her post implied that the member's response to such things is freaking, or, as you put it, responding irrationally, and I highly disagree. These things are so incredibly dangerous to our souls that, if anything, people are not responding intently enough to their severity. What does qualify as a viable thing to freak at? Someone sticking their hand in the fire? A kid running out into traffic? Someone playing with a loaded gun? Are people's souls less valuable to us than their safety and their lives? We freak because we care.

It sounds like you've read Greg Wright's book (or something similar). Mostly good ideas. I always go with, agency is the right to choose between salvation and damnation.

Okay, try this one on for size: What is agency and why is it important to the plan of salvation?

Unfortunately, I think, it's more complicated than this. Either of these could be "civil" it the relationship was such that it was taken right, and either could be uncivil if there were misunderstandings. I wonder if there is a universal response that would generally be considered civil by all. Perhaps something akin to "I'm really sorry. I'd love to give you that but for such-n-such reasons I can't." ???? Any way you cut it, it's complicated. Communication is complicated, and civil intent vs. perception is even more complicated.