DH's internet habits...how worried should I be?

[JojoBag]

No, he does not.

 

I am sorry for your situation, MM. You have my best hopes. But I must offer the correction that nowhere does Christ say that looking at a woman with lust is adultery. This is a common idea, but is simply false.

 

I keep telling people that they need to do their research before posting answers, especially answers that are patently wrong, but nobody listens.  Here is a quote from Elder Neal A. Maxwell.

 

 

One of the Ten Commandments in its original form said, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” (Ex. 20:14) Incorporated within the Doctrine and Covenants, fittingly, is the added warning against mental adultery which Jesus first gave in his earthly ministry in the Holy Land: “And he that looketh upon a woman to lust after her shall deny the faith, and shall not have the Spirit; and if he repents not he shall be cast out.” (D&C 42:23) 

Ensign Dec 1978, The Doctrine and Covenants: The Voice of the Lord

 

 

Let me emphasize the words, "mental adultery which Jesus first gave in his earthly ministry."  Let me say it again, "mental adultery."  Lusting after women is mental adultery, which will lead to damnation if a person does not repent.

Edited December 24, 2015 by JojoBag

[JojoBag]

Is he addicted to porn? like not going to work, spending all his money on pay sites, neglecting his family type addiction?

 

If the answer is yes then OK you can make an argument for divorce.  Our LDS concentric perception of what a porn addiction is not the norm. 

 

Before I get blasted I in no way advocate porn viewing in any way shape or form and her husband should stop immediately. 

 

You may not be advocating viewing porn, but it sounds like you sure are trivializing and minimizing this problem.  Who cares if porn addiction is not the norm.  This behavior will lead to it if not corrected.  Intentionally looking at any form of porn, be it racy photos, Swim Suit Illustrated or XXX rated videos is deadly serious and wrong.  Period!  I'm going to keep saying this, but for some funny reason, I just can't see the Savior sitting in front of a computer checking out half naked supermodels.

[JojoBag]

Pot meet kettle; please, please I'm begging you to show me in either scriptures or General Conference talks the bolded above. CFR.

 

Do you really understand what you are advocating? I think not.

 

And the follow your husbands to hell? Are you really trying to tell me that his sin is her sin.  That because he is sinning she will not inherit the Celestial Kingdom? Is that really your premise, because that is contrary to everything in the Gospel. Salvation, even Exaltation is an individual matter.

 

I get it, you have such a deep hatred for this sin; I do to, but you are letting your deep hatred of this sin override everything else to clouding your judgement. 

 

Would you accept the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith? 

 

 

If a man commit adultery, he cannot receive the celestial kingdom of God. Even if he is saved in any kingdom, it cannot be the celestial kingdom.—History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 81.

 

I think that's pretty clear.

[JojoBag]

That is a big maybe; but that decision is between him, his Bishop and the Lord.

 

In fact Bishops are counseled not to deviate from the questions and to not ask questions that are not found in the interview.

 

One question is "do you live the law of chastity?" If the guy says yes the Bishop could probably ask, "what is your understanding of the Law of Chastity?" But I don't think I've ever had a Bishop ask, "do you look at pornography or self-abuse?" as they really aren't supposed to.

 

If the guy brings it up and says, well Bishop I do xyz, then the Bishop may revoke the recommend, but he may not; he may actually encourage the guy to attend the temple more regularly. It just depends on what the Bishop hears and what the Spirit tells him would be the right course of action. A Bishop might restrict the person from taking the sacrament for a while and in extreme cases (and I've got to imagine it is pretty bad-like going into cybersex or something) one might get disfellowshipped.

 

And more to the point that looking at porn is not adultery (it is lust and it is 100% wrong) but it is not adultery.  I've never heard of a Disciplinary Counsel being called because some guy is into porn. You will get a disciplinary counsel called for actually committing adultery.

 

Oh, PUH-LEEZE!  Give me a break!  Are you serious?  Are you really saying that deliberately looking at half-naked women would not keep you from getting a temple recommend?  How can you possibly justify, minimize, and trivialize this behavior? 

 

 

One question is "do you live the law of chastity?"   If the guy says yes the Bishop could probably ask, "what is your understanding of the Law of Chastity?" But I don't think I've ever had a Bishop ask, "do you look at pornography or self-abuse?" as they really aren't supposed to.

 

I can only conclude from your post that you don't know what the Church deems part of the law of chastity.  Let me quote you from the Church web site:

 

 

Merely refraining from sexual intercourse outside of marriage is not sufficient in the Lord's standard of personal purity. The Lord requires a high moral standard of His disciples, including complete fidelity to one's spouse in thought and conduct. In the Sermon on the Mount, He said: “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matthew 5:27-28). In the latter days He has said, “Thou shalt not . . . commit adultery, . . . nor do anything like unto it” (D&C 59:6). And He has reemphasized the principle He taught in the Sermon on the Mount: “He that looketh on a woman to lust after her, or if any shall commit adultery in their hearts, they shall not have the Spirit, but shall deny the faith and shall fear” (D&C 63:16). These warnings apply to all people, whether they are married or single.  

https://www.lds.org/topics/chastity?lang=eng

 

It says, "complete fidelity to one's spouse in thought and conduct."  That absolutely covers looking at any form of porn.  Just because you or this man may not understand the true intent of the law of chastity does not mean he is not violating it.  If he were to go in to a recommend interview and disclosed his conduct, you can rest assured the bishop will make him wait a few months before issuing a recommend.

[JojoBag]

Dear MM,

 

Please get your husband help asap. I have had heaps of experience in this matter and he needs to be made painfully aware of what he is doing not only to himself but to your whole family. This is much worse than a bottle of wine a night. Sexual sin is just under the shedding of innocent blood to God. And comes at a hefty price.

 

When anyone accesses porn they invite, I mean they give an invitation for evil spirits to invade your home. These spirits will try to destroy your husband, you and your children. Once his addiction becomes compulsive he has already become possessed with an unclean spirit and needs it cast out. Your house will have to be blessed as well as you and your children.

 

These men have no idea what they are conjuring up when they delve into porn Most of the time it goes the porn goes from swim suites to nakedness to the sex act and then the most disgusting thoughts and desires imaginable. You see Satan doesn't want it to stop at swim suites he wants to DESTROY the souls of men.  

 

Please don't listen to the men on this site that trivualize porn they are either addicted themselves or have no idea how bad this can get and the evil and unclean spirit involvement. They are deceived by the wisdom of this world .Unclean spirits are spirits that have lived on the earth and died in their sins / addictions. They become subject to Satan and a lot of the time hang around their own family lines. They have had bodies and are able to more subtley possess their victims and when men delve into pornography they open themselves up to unclean and evil spirit possession. As a result their addiction becomes compulsive and the whole family can and will come under attack.

 

If any of you like me to, I can back up unclean / evil spirit possession by quoting church leaders. According to church leader the single most common affliction to man is evil spirit possession. These people that are delving into pornography might as well be delving into black magic because they get possessed and cause their loved ones and their homes to be haunted and afflicted.

 

Good Luck and God Bless

 

This is 100% right on the money.

[JojoBag]

Men's and Women's brains do work differently. It's called science. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hope-relationships/201402/brain-differences-between-genders. You libido is specific to you and you only. 

 

Who cares about what science says or thinks about anyone's libido.  A high libido has nothing to do with looking at porn.  I was addicted for nearly five decades to porn and I have a lower libido.  It is all about self-control.  We are required by our Heavenly Father to bridle our passions and desires.

 

Are you saying that porn addicts are possessed? I think that this is what your saying.  What a cop out for any porn addict. "The devil made me do it" That's great, how about the individual taking some personal responsibility for their actions?

 

Yes, those who are true addicts are possessed.  It isn't the evil spirit's fault nor is it responsible for the addicts actions.  When a person commits sin, they put themselves in Satan's power and open themselves up to possession.  The more serious the sin, the greater the chance of possession.  Since violations of the law of chastity are next to the shedding of innocent blood, I would say that this is a serious sin.

 

Elder Bruce R. McConkie had a bit to say on the subject.

 

 

There must be circumstances of depression and sin and physical weakness that within the restrictions of divine control, permit evil spirits to enter human bodies. We do know their curse is to be denied tabernacles, and we surmise that the desire for such tenancy is so great that they, when permitted, even enter the bodies of beasts. (The Mortal Messiah, 2:282) 

 

 

Manifestly, as in all things, there are laws and conditions under which devils have power to force entry into human bodies.

Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, vol. 1, Pg. 168

 

President George Q. Cannon had even more to say on the subject.

 

 

There are influences in the atmosphere that are invisible to us that, while we  are here upon the earth, we ought to resist with all our might, mind, and strength—influences which, if we would be led by them, would lead us to destruction—influences that are opposed to the Spirit of God—influences that would bring upon us destruction here and hereafter, if we would yield to them. These influences we have to resist. We have to resist the spirit of adultery, the spirit of whoredom, the spirit of drunkenness, the spirit of theft, and every other evil influence and spirit, that we may continually overcome; and, when we have finished our work on the earth, be prepared to govern and control those influences, and exercise power over them, in the presence of our Father and God. I have no doubt that many of my brethren and sisters have sensibly felt in various places and at various times evil influences around them. Brother Joseph Smith gave an explanation of this. There are places in the Mississippi Valley where the influence or the presence of invisible spirits are very perceptibly felt. He said that numbers had been slain there in war, and that there were evil influences or spirits which affect the spirits of those who have tabernacles on the earth.

JD 11:29-30

 

Every properly constituted person can feel the influence of the various spirits that are in the world, and that seek to bring us in subjection to them. To some it is given to see these influences; but all can feel them. Whence is it that anger comes? You will see a man all at once seized with a spirit of anger: another time you will see a person seized with a spirit of jealousy, or some other evil influence, infuriated sometimes, so much so that he or she is transformed. You have seen people's faces completely changed by the spirit that takes possession of them. They cannot see that power; but it is undoubtedly a spiritual entity. We may not be conscious of it, but it takes possession of us if we yield to it. The Lord our God has sent us here to get experience in these things, so that we may know the good from the evil, and be able to close our hearts against the evil. "But," says one, "I have not power to do that. It takes possession of me and I have not power to resist it." Another says, "I am assailed by doubts and by unbelief, and I cannot help it." Now, this is not so. It is true that some have greater power of resistance than others, but everyone has the power to close his heart against doubt, against darkness, against unbelief, against depression, against anger, against hatred, against jealousy, against malice, against envy.

“Discourse” Deseret News, Sept 29, 1894

 

 The Deseret News ran an editorial in 1853 telling the Saints about some of the causes of possession, all dealing with sin.

 

 

Jesus and his disciples in different ages have commanded the unclean and wicked spirits to depart out of those of whom they had taken possession, and they have departed; but there are those spirits which are not easily dispossessed, and go out only by prayer and fasting. And again, there are those spirits that will hardly go out at any price, except it is by the will of those who harbor them. And of what class are they? They are invited spirits. Invited spirits? Yes, many spirits watch their opportunity to thrust themselves into a person when and where they are not wanted, and such are much more easily cast out than those who are invited guests.

For instance, a person, for some real or supposed injury or neglect from a friend, wishes to retaliate to be revenged, and of course, opens the way and invites the spirit of jealousy to take possession; and the moment jealousy enters the breast, there is a perfect hell of happiness; and no scheme that hell itself can devise to torment, perplex, harass, disturb, vex and mar the peace of the wife, or the wife of the husband, is left untouched, unmoved; and by that time the breast of the harborer is opened to all the evil spirits of Pandemonium, all have free access; and oh, what a world of glory dwells there.

And how shall that jealous spirit be removed? By the laying on of hands? The Lord deliver us from such an ordinance, in such a case. Why? That spirit was invited to take up its abode there, and while that spirit is made welcome by that person, what right have we to dispossess it? It would be abridging the agency of the individual who invited the spirit, for any one to cause that spirit to depart, without the persons leave, and we choose that all should exercise their own agency and responsibility, and then they are subjects of accountability.

Other spirits, not particularly invited or desired, gain an easy access to those who are careless, heedless, and but too indifferent to the statutes, ordinances, and duties of God’s kingdom; who neglect their prayers, their assembling together, and doing as they would be done unto; and from these spirits arise contention, strife, evil thinking, evil speaking, evil surmising, detraction, revenge, law-suits, and a host of such perplexing annoyances, sufficient to disturb a nation; but the man who is obedient to his God in all things; who knows no will of his own, only to do the will of his father in heaven; is free from these spirits; the Devil has no power over him; for he resists him, and evil spirits are compelled to flee at his rebuke.

 

Deseret News, To The Saints, Feb 21, 1853

vol. 2 no. 8

 

Possession is very common even though it is dismissed by many LDS.  It commonly happens when people commit sin.

[Vort]

 

I keep telling people that they need to do their research before posting answers, especially answers that are patently wrong, but nobody listens.

 

Frustrating, isn't it? No names, but I keep having that same problem with a guy whose kitty-cat avatar looks like a pig.

 

Let me emphasize the words, "mental adultery which Jesus first gave in his earthly ministry."  Let me say it again, "mental adultery."

 

Sorry, I'm not sure I quite got that. Can you repeat?

 

Lusting after women is mental adultery, which will lead to damnation if a person does not repent.

 

Pretty sure no one has suggested otherwise.

[zil]

JojoBag, I don't agree with everything you post (on the forums, pretty sure I do in this thread), but thank you for being a man making concerted efforts to hold other men to the highest standard, and rejecting their "can't help it" -type excuses (apparently, when women make this attempt, we're acting like mothers - and apparently there's something wrong with acting like mothers).

 

I would add, in response to those who seem to object to getting the bishop involved: why is it that when we see people struggling with other trials, that we're all in favor of enlisting external aid, but not with this trial (and it is a trial)?  If we see behavior in someone that we fear will lead to that person harming others, we asked (and most of us expect ourselves and others) to act early.  I see behavior that is already harming the actor and others.  While it's true that one must be a willing participant in repentance, sometimes the external exposure, or the external pressure, or the external perspective is needed to open the sinner's eyes to just how bad their behavior is.  Then, being denied the option of hiding behind self-deception, one _begins_ to feel those stirrings that lead to repentance.

 

I have experienced this myself with negative habits and behaviors of my own, and I am grateful to the people in my life who have helped me overcome self-deception so that I could choose to do better.  Sometimes that person was a friend, who had the guts to tell me I was behaving badly.  Sometimes it was a bishop who received inspiration regarding a 5th-Sunday lesson topic.  Sometimes it was a ward member who followed the Spirit in preparing a talk or lesson.  No matter who it was, they were acting as Saviors on Mt. Zion.

[estradling75]

So out of curiosity, what happens if one spouse refuses flat-out to stop looking at whatever level of porn or similar, giving a simple "I understand where you are coming from and I love you, but I choose this and it's not stopping in the forseen future." Does a good wife just learn to live with it and be miserable? It seems the "don't divorce" idea puts all power with one spouse who can then do whatever he or she wants short of abuse and adultery and the partner just has to deal with it.

 

In this case...  They need to ask themselves a question.  To whom are they under covenant to?  To their spouse?  Or are both the Husband and Wife under covenant to the Lord?  The correct answer of course is to the Lord.  Next question to ask yourself.  When you prayed (assumed you did pray before making a major life change) and the Lord confirmed to you that this was the person to marry.  Did Lord know your spouses weakness?  Did the All Knowing, All Powerful God, say yes this is your path knowing the trials you faced?...  Again I think the answer is clear.

 

The question should not be what are your limits to your spouse's actions, but what are the Lord's limits?  Given this, it is very likely that the Lord ordain you unto this trial as way for you to be test and develop Christ-like attributes.  If this hold true (which by every reasoning and logic we have it does) then one should be very much against using agency (which we can do) to cut it short, to say NO I will not do this.  Instead we should approach the Lord in humbleness and meekness asking if it is his will it should end, and if it is not, then strength to endure, and wisdom to know the right path.

 

Now the idea has been put forth that on should not follow our spouse to Hell.  This is correct.  However it is wrong-minded to assume our spouse's actions will condemn us and drag us there.  It is our actions, and our actions only.  It happens when we (and only we) choose to defy the Lord.  And it could very well happen if we choose to break our Covenants to the Lord in relation to our spouse against his will, as it can if we stay after he tells us to leave. 

[JojoBag]

 

 

Now the idea has been put forth that on should not follow our spouse to Hell.  This is correct.  However it is wrong-minded to assume our spouse's actions will condemn us and drag us there.  It is our actions, and our actions only.  It happens when we (and only we) choose to defy the Lord.  And it could very well happen if we choose to break our Covenants to the Lord in relation to our spouse against his will, as it can if we stay after he tells us to leave. 

 

I'm not sure how this saying was construed to mean the spouse would go to hell based on the husband's sins.  Brigham Young never meant it that way.  He was saying that if a spouse's actions are leading him to hell and he doesn't repent, the woman needs to leave him. 

[estradling75]

I'm not sure how this saying was construed to mean the spouse would go to hell based on the husband's sins.  Brigham Young never meant it that way.  He was saying that if a spouse's actions are leading him to hell and he doesn't repent, the woman needs to leave him. 

 

If one's spouse does not repent then when the Lord decides their eternal fate that is the end.  However that determination belongs to no one but the Lord himself.  We have neither the right nor the capability to render eternal judgement on our spouse.

 

To many people might read that quote and take it upon themselves to say "If my spouse does not change by X then I am out of here," because that is how they understand the Brigham Young's quote.  However if they do so without gaining the approval of the Lord then they break their covenants just as assuredly as their spouse has.

[JojoBag]

If one's spouse does not repent then when the Lord decides their eternal fate that is the end.  However that determination belongs to no one but the Lord himself.  We have neither the right nor the capability to render eternal judgement on our spouse.

 

To many people might read that quote and take it upon themselves to say "If my spouse does not change by X then I am out of here," because that is how they understand the Brigham Young's quote.  However if they do so without gaining the approval of the Lord then they break their covenants just as assuredly as their spouse has.

 

You are right regarding final judgments that only God can make.  However, I infer from the context of your comment that you believe that most judgments are wrong.  That isn't true.  Elder Dalin H. Oaks taught about final judgments and intermediate judgments.  I recommend that you read the talk.

 

 

There are two kinds of judging: final judgments, which we are forbidden to make, and intermediate judgments, which we are directed to make, but upon righteous principles.  "Judge Not" and Judging, Ensign August 1999

 

I agree that a spouse should be long suffering.  If my wife were not, she'd have tossed me out long ago.  Fortunately for me, she is and I have grown through her prompting.  However, it is when a spouse will not respond to righteous counsel that intermediate judgments are to be made.  How long is long suffering"  I'm not advocating a person run at the first offense.  I am advocating that a person leave when the Holy Spirit gives her permission to do so.  That is not something anyone but the affected spouse can determine, but it must be done prayerfully.

 

Personally, I never considered Brigham's comment to mean that a spouse can run at the drop of a hat.  That interpretation goes completely against his counsel and the counsel of every prophet since. 

[Vort]

I'm not sure how this saying was construed to mean the spouse would go to hell based on the husband's sins.  Brigham Young never meant it that way.  He was saying that if a spouse's actions are leading him to hell and he doesn't repent, the woman needs to leave him. 

 

I don't believe this, but I am willing to be proven wrong. Please cite where Brigham Young ever told women that they need to leave an unrepentant spouse.

[estradling75]

You are right regarding final judgments that only God can make.  However, I infer from the context of your comment that you believe that most judgments are wrong.  That isn't true.  Elder Dalin H. Oaks taught about final judgments and intermediate judgments.  I recommend that you read the talk.

 

 

I agree that a spouse should be long suffering.  If my wife were not, she'd have tossed me out long ago.  Fortunately for me, she is and I have grown through her prompting.  However, it is when a spouse will not respond to righteous counsel that intermediate judgments are to be made.  How long is long suffering"  I'm not advocating a person run at the first offense.  I am advocating that a person leave when the Holy Spirit gives her permission to do so.  That is not something anyone but the affected spouse can determine, but it must be done prayerfully.

 

Personally, I never considered Brigham's comment to mean that a spouse can run at the drop of a hat.  That interpretation goes completely against his counsel and the counsel of every prophet since. 

 

I have read his talk... When you started a thread awhile back about his talk... I quoted for the entire thread the 7 point he gave for making righteous judgement.  He said we need all seven to make a righteous judgement.  And yes I do think we get all 7 much less then we think we do.

 

As for my opinion if and when we should make judgement... I am saying that if we think our "Righteous Judgement" of our spouse's actions allow us to break our covenant (like we judge them to be breaking theirs) then we are flat out wrong.  Our spouse's sin do not justify our own.

 

And if you don't believe Brigham Young meant it to trivial then you should stop making it as trivial suggestion on how people should handle this matter.  Because if people take your suggestion as a prophetic endorsement to break their covenants they will be doing exactly as Brigham Young counciled against.  They will be "Following their spouse to hell"

[yjacket]

Oh, PUH-LEEZE!  Give me a break!  Are you serious?  Are you really saying that deliberately looking at half-naked women would not keep you from getting a temple recommend?  How can you possibly justify, minimize, and trivialize this behavior? 

 

A merry Christmas!

 

I am really starting to question whether you know anything about that which you claim you are talking about.

 

No, I am saying I don't know; that question is for the person 1st, the Lord and their Bishop; anyone who says otherwise does not truly understand how temple recommends nor how worthiness and the atonement works.

 

The first filter is the person committing the sin. When one commits sin, the first step is the recognition that the sin is bad. Some people do not feel the need to confess to the Bishop every little sin; others feel the need to confess if they have a bottle of wine.  When to confess a sin to the Bishop is largely left to the individual. In general the only sins that are required to be confessed are those that are of such magnitude to require formal church discipline. If pornography requires formal church discipline then a lot of Bishops are not doing their job.

 

You do realize Bishops are called to be Judges in Israel and as such when someone comes to them with a sin, they have the right to determine how to help that person to stay on a better path. That may require revocation of a temple recommend or it may not.  Neither you nor I can say what it would be. And for you to do say otherwise so is an extremely unrighteous judgmental decision.

 

You claim that me saying this amounts to trivialization of it? What a completely illogical statement.

 

Me saying that Bishops in temple recommend interview are told not to deviate from the questions means that I am trivializing it? The Bishop asks, do you obey the Law of Chastity? That is it; they are not to go into detail about "do you self-abuse" etc. they just aren't. If the person can honestly say "yes" they get a recommend. The Bishop can ask additional questions like what is the Law of Chastity, etc? But any additional questions are not to be additional requirements.

 

If when the Bishops ask the LoC question or at any other point the individual brings up concerns, the Bishop then has the opportunity to counsel with the person and that counsel may be include holding off of the temple recommend, or it may not. It really just depends, because you know the Bishop is the Judge in Israel and kind of has that right.  

 

My biggest bone during this whole thing and I have repeated over and over is that no scripture, no GA, no GC talk has ever condoned divorce over this issue.

 

Because I have said that, I am trivializing it?  Get real.

 

Pardon me, for not wanting to burn at the stake individuals who have gone down this road.

[yjacket]

I agree that a spouse should be long suffering.  If my wife were not, she'd have tossed me out long ago.

Yes, since you've already admitted to this sin in the past. What an evil woman your wife was for not divorcing you over this issue as had you died before you repented of this sin you would have dragged her to hell, right?

Edited December 25, 2015 by yjacket

[yjacket]

I would add, in response to those who seem to object to getting the bishop involved: 

 

I don't object to the Bishop being involved in the least bit. I object to saying he must be involved.  The Bishop is an awesome resource and should certainly be used when and if necessary. If one is struggling with this issue needs additional help and guidance, then absolutely by all means they should see the Bishop. He can provide an extra bit of spiritual guidance, if necessary a spiritual stick or a spiritual carrot to help the person.  He can provide resources to go to like the addiction recovery, etc.

 

I object to a spouse telling one another "you will see the Bishop" or STTE. I think a spouse can certainly encourage or recommend seeing the Bishop. But I think a spouse telling one another they must see the Bishop is exercising unrighteous dominion over each other.

 

In general, I think people can pretty much figure out on their own when to see the Bishop and don't need to be forced to do so. The reason being is that regardless of what a Bishop says or does, with this issue (and with most sins) until the person is ready and willing to change talking to the Bishop won't really do much good.  When someone is ready and willing to change, then seeing the Bishop is great; if their heart really isn't into changing then it won't do much good.

 

And a spouse telling another "you will see the Bishop" ain't gonna be changing their heart into being ready to change.

[JojoBag]

Yes, since you've already admitted to this sin in the past. What an evil woman your wife was for not divorcing you over this issue as had you died before you repented of this sin you would have dragged her to hell, right?

 

There is a major difference between me and other men with this problem.  The first time I told my wife about it, I did something about it.  I didn't go back to it time and again.  When I did tell her about it, I was fully prepared for her to leave me.  In spite of that, I told her anyway.  She recognized my determination to never offend again and she forgave me.  That was several years ago.  I overcame it and have never gone back to it again.

 

Your suggestion that I would have dragged her to hell if I hadn't repented is rather asinine, nor have I ever suggested it, or suggested that Brigham Young ever said that.  That was an assumption on your part.  If you do some research into what President Young taught, you would have realized that.

[JojoBag]

I don't believe this, but I am willing to be proven wrong. Please cite where Brigham Young ever told women that they need to leave an unrepentant spouse.

 

You are correct that Pres. Young did not say for a wife to leave an unrepentant spouse.  Here is his exact quote.

 

 

"I have counseled every woman of this Church to let her husband be her file leader; he leads her, and those above him in the Priesthood lead him. But I never counseled a woman to follow her husband to hell" (Brigham Young, Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 201).

 

What would you consider an "unrepentant spouse?"  How long does one spouse endure infidelity, breach of trust, and emotional abuse?  This is precisely what looking at pornography (no matter how extreme or tame) is: infidelity, breach of trust and emotional abuse.  I only had to tell my wife just one time about my use of pornography before I stopped and overcame it.  How long does a wife endure this?  I think it is up to each individual person and their ability to cope with this type of abuse.  Some people have a greater capacity to understand and forgive.  I don't think that a woman should have to cope with years of abuse.

[estradling75]

What would you consider an "unrepentant spouse?"  How long does one spouse endure infidelity, breach of trust, and emotional abuse?  This is precisely what looking at pornography (no matter how extreme or tame) is: infidelity, breach of trust and emotional abuse.  I only had to tell my wife just one time about my use of pornography before I stopped and overcame it.  How long does a wife endure this?  I think it is up to each individual person and their ability to cope with this type of abuse.  Some people have a greater capacity to understand and forgive.  I don't think that a woman should have to cope with years of abuse.

 

The Wife endures it.... Until her prayers to the Lord are answered that he has accepted her sacrifice and requires it no more of her.  Anything less is her breaking of her covenant

[JojoBag]

The Wife endures it.... Until her prayers to the Lord are answered that he has accepted her sacrifice and requires it no more of her.  Anything less is her breaking of her covenant

 

Exactly.   Well said.

[Backroads]

Estradling's reply has had me thinking in the back of my mind. I wonder if some cases of suffering are to our spiritual harm, thus leading to God's approval to leave a situation.

[yjacket]

Your suggestion that I would have dragged her to hell if I hadn't repented is rather asinine, nor have I ever suggested it, or suggested that Brigham Young ever said that.

 

I'm not trying to pick on anything, but I am honestly really confused now.  Earlier you said:

 

  If he will not change, she has the right to leave his sorry butt because he is incapable of achieving the Celestial Kingdom.  Let me paraphrase Brigham Young when he told women, "Follow your husbands, but not to hell."

 

Your above two statements to me are conflicting; i.e. you are giving one piece of advice for someone else and then saying something different for yourself.

[yjacket]

Exactly.   Well said.

Jojo, you've been talking out of both sides of your mouth.  First you say she has a right to leave and then you say well she has to endure until God says she doesn't.

 

I would say that no one has the right to leave a marriage until God says so.  Unless we are to put ourselves in the place of God and determine in what circumstances he would say so as simple members of the church we should not be making statements like "she has the right to leave". The Church and scriptures have declared that the only justifiable grounds for divorce are Adultery and Abuse and that is really all we should declare.

 

I certainly believe implicit in those statements are the idea that God has the ultimate authority to determine when a marriage can be dissolved.  If someone prayed about divorce and felt they had an answer from God; I would only caution that the scriptures have said Adultery and Abuse, if they feel God is telling them to divorce, then they better be darn sure that answer is coming from God and they aren't being deceived-but I am in no place to tell another person whether an answer they are getting is from God or not.

[yjacket]

I know this isn't what you're saying, but the very idea of a man not needing porn if his home life and marriage are secure can put, at least the image of, a lot of pressure on a wife. In that scenario she can be led to believe she just isn't being good enough: if she were just more nurturing, more loving, more supportive, more spiritual, more whatever, the porn problem wouldn't continue.

And again, I know you don't mean to put any blame on a spouse for a partner's porn issues which are ultimately that partner's alone.

Just pointing out it's difficult to get around female instinctive guilt.

No it is for both to work on.  A healthy marriage cannot work if the woman is putting forth all the effort and the man is not.

 

It is the man's choice to engage in that activity and as such he bares full, complete responsibility. And I in no way am putting any blame on a spouse for their partner's issues. I am suggesting that things do not work in a vacuum, however.

 

In an unhealthy marriage, the spouse may not turn to porn-but maybe instead of porn he turns to working too much or spending too much time with friends, or in games, etc. The others are much less serious sins, and more healthy ways of outlet; but in an unhappy marriage the emotions will find an outlet.

 

That is why I have said, one of the only real things MM can do is to be the best spouse possible.

Edited December 26, 2015 by yjacket