The Pornography Talk...

[BeccaKirstyn]

Well I went into our YSA combined 3rd hour meeting expecting the bishop to talk about something close to the law of chastity, and he ended up talking about pornography (per the stake president's counsel). We watched about a 16 min. Ted talk, I'll put the link below if you're interested, called the "the great porn experiment". It was a more physiological explanation of pornography and the long term effects of porn addiction. From there our bishop wanted to keep the discussion as an open forum, for those who wanted to ask questions or make comments (he didn't expect many---but oh did my ward prove him wrong, and not in a good way). There was about 10 minutes of some good comments and questions about how to bring this up in dating, since pornography use has become so common now. Then as our bishop was about to start moving towards talking about the repentance process in relation to pornography use, we had one last person comment, and that's where everything went downhill.

He (the individual who wanted to comment) wanted to make it clear that the way we were discussing pornography was at the addiction level, and that for the majority of people at the YSA age, it isn't that extreme. It is more of a "causal use" (his words, not mine) type of thing that most lds members are doing and we need to realize the difference between the two. He said, of course both require repentance and they're still a sin, but they're different. Our bishop responded with saying, "okay, I guess I understand what you're saying....well no actually, I don't. I think that's rationalizing the problem and I don't quite understand what you mean by "casually using" pornography?" Well oh boy did that set off a storm. Many people started to chime in now to try to explain that there are "varying levels of pornography use" and all must be treated differently. This probably went on for a good 10 minutes as well, but you could just feel the spirit leave the room. He finally reined it back in, and said sternly "brothers and sisters, I meet with you on Sundays and Tuesdays, and see around 10-15 of you each week. And guess what we are discussing? Pornography. So it's hard for me to see this as a casual use problem when it is so prevalent and effecting your lives." He ended with giving the location for the nearest 12-steps program and a website where you can find lds counselors and psychologists.

I was just in shock. I guess I am a very black and white person, but the amount of people that were trying to defend this "casual use" comment was just astonishing. I could hear it in the voices of those who defended this concept, that they just thought our bishop was too old to understand our generation and what pornography is like today. I don't care what kind of "use" you want to label it as. If you're viewing pornography, you're dealing with a very serious sin. I don't care if you only "dabble" in it a few times a month, or if you're a straight addict. There is no difference in the fact that it is a sin, and that you are ruining your ability to form relationships in a healthy way. Now if you're a psychologist or a psychiatrist who is talking to a patient about their pornography use, then yes, it is crucial to understand the extent of their use and if it is a full fledge addiction. But as a YSA ward discussing pornography in relation to the gospel and the repentance process, the conversation of "casual use" vs. addiction was so off base. 

But maybe that was just me. I don't know. I'm interested to know what you all think about it. 

 

TED talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSF82AwSDiU

 

Edited July 31, 2017 by BeccaKirstyn

[Guest]

To paraphrase Mark Twain

"Quitting pornography is easy.  I've done it hundreds of times."

[a mustard seed]

I don't think there is a casual use of pornography, honestly. Gonna be a little vulnerable here but when I returned to church, I had a lot of work to do to become temple worthy again. I wrote erotica online during my inactive years. And like any good writer...I researched the material. There was stuff that I was definitively innocent about before I decided to write these subjects and even at one point during the last year of my attendance before becoming inactive, I even told myself that I was just "informing" myself, that my ignorance was a weakness. How I wish I could have a pure mind again... Some days I am incredibly saddened by what I did, even though the repentance process for those particular sins is over and I have shut the door on that chapter in my life, with the help of the Savior. There are some things I will never again be able to close the door on. Because once you see it...it's in there, like a little mag you carry around with you forever. You can put it on a shelf or put it away, you can choose to not partake when the adversary whips it out at inappropriate times but it will always be a bunch of pictures that you own.

[Guest]

The casual vs. Addict distinction is more about treatment options than seriousness of sin.  All pornography use is bad and will keep you from being temple worthy.  Bishop involvement is required for all pornography use.  After the sin is confessed to the bishop, general authorities have told bishops there is a difference in casual use versus addiction.  This preserves the bishop's ability to take action depending on the circumstances.  For example, a bishop may tell someone who had a one-off to be more careful next time, while someone who uses regularly may be counseled to go to a 12-step program.  This is similar to how a bishop may counsel someone having alcohol problems of varying degrees.

The whole point of the repentance process with pornography use is to get people off of the stuff so they can move forward.  The casual versus addict distinction is not about the seriousness of the sin, but approaches the bishop may use to get people off of the pornography so they can progress and telling bishops they are free to use different approaches for different situations according to how they are inspired.

Edited July 31, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[BeccaKirstyn]

23 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

The casual vs. Addict distinction is more about treatment options than seriousness of sin.  All pornography use is bad and will keep you from being temple worthy.  Bishop involvement is required for all pornography use.  After the sin is confessed to the bishop, general authorities have told bishops there is a difference in casual use versus addiction.  This preserves the bishop's ability to take action depending on the circumstances.  For example, a bishop may tell someone who had a one-off to be more careful next time, while someone who uses regularly may be counseled to go to a 12-step program.  This is similar to how a bishop may counsel someone having alcohol problems of varying degrees.

The whole point of the repentance process with pornography use is to get people off of the stuff so they can move forward.  The casual versus addict distinction is not about the seriousness of the sin, but approaches the bishop may use to get people off of the pornography so they can progress and telling bishops they are free to use different approaches for different situations according to how they are inspired.

Absolutely. If we were discussing treatment options and were on that kind of topic, then the comment would have been more relevant and wouldn't have possibly created the storm that it did. But it really didn't pertain to the discussions we were having prior to it (e.g., the prevalence of it within this age range, how to approach this issue in dating, the seriousness of the sin), and I think threw my bishop off in regards to what we were already discussing.

Unfortunately it was a very short meeting and there was so much more that could have been discussed, but instead we spent too much time on this causal vs. addiction subject that didn't really pertain to the point of that meeting. 

[Guest]

Just now, BeccaKirstyn said:

Absolutely. If we were discussing treatment options and were on that kind of topic, then the comment would have been more relevant and wouldn't have possibly created the storm that it did. But it really didn't pertain to the discussions we were having prior to it (e.g., the prevalence of it within this age range, how to approach this issue in dating, the seriousness of the sin), and I think threw my bishop off in regards to what we were already discussing.

Unfortunately it was a very short meeting and there was so much more that could have been discussed, but instead we spent too much time on this causal vs. addiction subject that didn't really pertain to the point of that meeting. 

It also sounds like whoever brought up the distinction was implying that a little "casual" pornography use is OK as long as you are not addicted, which is absolutely not correct.  All pornography use is bad and will keep you from the temple.  The distinction is really more for bishops than for regular members of the church.  Bishops should use the distinction in determining what comes after confession, but there should be no distinction for a member in deciding whether to confess and/or quit using pornography.

[BeccaKirstyn]

5 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

It also sounds like whoever brought up the distinction was implying that a little "casual" pornography use is OK as long as you are not addicted, which is absolutely not correct.  All pornography use is bad and will keep you from the temple.  The distinction is really more for bishops than for regular members of the church.  Bishops should use the distinction in determining what comes after confession, but there should be no distinction for a member in deciding whether to confess and/or quit using pornography.

Yeah I've been trying to think of how else they could have possibly implied it, but I just keep going back to this same thing. 

[Just_A_Guy]

Yeah; the difference strikes me as pretty pedantic.  If you think you aren't addicted--fine, then; stop using.  Just stop it!  Talk to your bishop and move on; case closed.

But if you find yourself coming back to it, in contravention of the better angels of your nature--guess what?  You're probably addicted; and even if you aren't *addicted* in the clinical sense of the word--working the Church's 12-step addiction recovery program (which is really just a university-level course on repentance) isn't going to do you any harm.

The OP's bishop was nicer than I would have been to these folks.  I probably would have been tempted to reply "And when was *your* most recent porn use, brother?"

Edited July 31, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[BeccaKirstyn]

2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The OP's bishop was nicer than I would have been to these folks.  I probably would have been tempted to reply "And when was *your* most recent porn use, brother?"

Right??

 

[Jane_Doe]

I think @DoctorLemon and @Just_A_Guy totally nailed comments on this.  All I can add it "amen"!

[NeuroTypical]

My ward just did this too.   Our Bishop and 2nd counselor drew distinctions between varying levels of use.  Starting with "inadvertent" (meaning you misclick or see something you didn't mean to see), and ending with addictive use, where you couldn't stop even if you wanted to.  There were two levels in between - I forget the phrases - something like 'occasional use' and 'frequent use'. 

The deal here was 'inadvertent' isn't sinning - you didn't mean to.  Everything else is, with increasing levels of seriousness and harm done.

[The Folk Prophet]

10 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

My ward just did this too.   Our Bishop and 2nd counselor drew distinctions between varying levels of use.  Starting with "inadvertent" (meaning you misclick or see something you didn't mean to see), and ending with addictive use, where you couldn't stop even if you wanted to.  There were two levels in between - I forget the phrases - something like 'occasional use' and 'frequent use'. 

The deal here was 'inadvertent' isn't sinning - you didn't mean to.  Everything else is, with increasing levels of seriousness and harm done.

I've seen the distinction that includes the inadvertent seeing of something you didn't mean to use as if it's a level of pornography consumption idea before and I remember thinking then that it was a strange distinction to even make.

That being said, I avoid that level like the plague!

And for what it's worth (which I'm sure, is probably worth a huge argument with somebody), I don't think I buy into the "couldn't stop even if you wanted to" idea.

And while I'm at it (if I'm going to cause a row then I best get to it), although only related in my train of thought*, I don't know that I buy into empathy either.

What I mean by that is two-fold. A. I'm not sure it's possible. How can I possibly relate to something I've never experienced? B. I'm not sure it's important. Why do I have to be able to relate to something to show compassion and love for the person experiencing it?

* Here's the train of though: Our 5th Sunday lesson yesterday was on mental health. I didn't find the lesson particularly useful, and mostly a nod to the lie of a culture we live in that places validation above all else. Two of the concepts that kept coming up were related to fault and empathy. The fault idea, specifically, never addressed choice. And whereas I fully understand that the entire idea behind mental health problems is directly related to lack of choice, the way one handles said situation is very related to choice (which was even specifically dealt with in the materials we were given, but ignored by way of discussion). Anyhow, people kept using alcoholism-is-a-disease as an example and I had the thought, "I don't buy that. I know it's the thing to say, but....really?" So I googled "Is alcoholism a disease" and found a whole host of support behind my thought, which is, basically, that labeling it a disease (which is all we're really talking about...a label), implies lack of choice -- which helps -- who? (Here's the search if anyone is interested in perusing some of the stuff I looked at: https://www.bing.com/search?q=alcoholism+is+not+a+disease&PC=U316&FORM=CHROMN) Anyhow, so when I read "couldn't stop even if you want to" it led me down the same thought paths -- and the other thought that kept coming up in the lesson was the importance of empathy, and how most of us don't actually have empathy, but only sympathy (like this was a bad thing), and that true empathy requires something more, really getting into some (I can't remember the phrasing) depth of something. And I couldn't help but think to myself: (repeating myself now), A) how is that helpful? B) I don't think that's even possible.

Okay. Have at it people. Tell me how horrible I am and how I'm everything wrong with the church and whatnot.

Now that I think of it, I'm probably derailing the thread. Let me start another one where I can be told how horrible I am on the empathy thought. Stick to calling me horrible for the "couldn't stop even if you wanted to" is a falsehood and other porn related thoughts here.

Here's the empathy thread: 

 

Edited July 31, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Just_A_Guy]

I think I can kind of see where you're going with the "can't stop even if you wanted to" thing (if they *really* want to stop, why don't they just do it?  They must not really want to stop).  

And I would just suggest that people have a dual nature; and that while part of a person *does* want to stop, the other part frankly *doesn't*.  And if you've let the second part control the first part for long enough; that first part sort of atrophies and won't effectively re-assert itself without some spiritual/cognitive re-training.

[The Folk Prophet]

Isn't the, 'I can't because I don't want to' idea flawed from the get go?

[The Folk Prophet]

Another thought. I tend to think that embracing 'I can't' is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Another thought. I tend to think that embracing 'I can't' is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Yes, I can't is self-fulfilling.

I couldn't is a different matter.  And it is very real.

[a mustard seed]

31 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Isn't the, 'I can't because I don't want to' idea flawed from the get go?

"I couldn't stop even if I wanted to" is just the starting part, the admitting of a lack of control in the situation. I suffer from an addiction/compulsion, not about pornography but something else, and in talking with my bishop about it, he helped put it into words that at the times when I give in, I don't really think too hard about the action or analyze or confront it. All I think and feel in that moment is the "need" the thing that I get out of giving in. Obviously, there's something else under that, the need being fulfilled that needs to actually be looked at and confronted in order to replace the unwanted behavior/addiction with something that will actually meet this need sufficiently. Some people don't even get to that point though; take my mother for example. One of my last phone conversations with her, she slurred her words, laughed at inappropriate times and repeated several times the same thing to me. Yet when confronted, apparently, "she hadn't had a drink all day." She's either lying to me or lying to us both about how much "control" she has in that situation and there's no way to even have the conversation "what need are you trying to fulfill" until she admits there is this duality, there is this place she gets to in giving in, where she doesn't consciously acknowledge the behavior, where she performs the actions by being disconnected from this part of reality.

You have to start there before you can get to uncovering the reasons(because there is a payoff to everything we do; it's not always trauma or whatever but a reason why the habit was built) and then replacing the behaviors. "I couldn't stop even if I wanted to" is not the step you stay at in recovery, it's the awakening to take control of your life back. I too do not like the term "disease" for addiction because the whole point is to get that control back in recovery; how can you get something back that you never had if it is truly just a "disease" you're afflicted by?

[Snigmorder]

When I hear people like that my eyes glaze over and I ignore them. It's not my issue if they don't "get it." So glad I'm not in leadership. 

I have seen that Ted Talk and it was important for me to watch back before I had the faith to cite obedience as my reason for quitting (though I knew it was morally wrong.) It scared me enough to do something about it.

18 hours ago, a mustard seed said:

How I wish I could have a pure mind again.

I know exactly what you mean.

[artista]

On 7/30/2017 at 6:27 PM, a mustard seed said:

I don't think there is a casual use of pornography, honestly. Gonna be a little vulnerable here but when I returned to church, I had a lot of work to do to become temple worthy again. I wrote erotica online during my inactive years. And like any good writer...I researched the material. There was stuff that I was definitively innocent about before I decided to write these subjects and even at one point during the last year of my attendance before becoming inactive, I even told myself that I was just "informing" myself, that my ignorance was a weakness. How I wish I could have a pure mind again... Some days I am incredibly saddened by what I did, even though the repentance process for those particular sins is over and I have shut the door on that chapter in my life, with the help of the Savior. There are some things I will never again be able to close the door on. Because once you see it...it's in there, like a little mag you carry around with you forever. You can put it on a shelf or put it away, you can choose to not partake when the adversary whips it out at inappropriate times but it will always be a bunch of pictures that you own.

Yes, yes, yes! Thank you for your honesty! Very brave of you. I love that you brought up that the images are there!!! They will pop up randomly and it is quite the battle to remove them! Even after repentance and you are clean, that is the one thing that can remain. I know that we can fast, and pray, and fast and pray to remove those thoughts and I know the Lord will help us. So, in my opinion that is the worst side effect of porn. My brother watches porn and is severely addicted. And he wonders why his wife can't do those things for him. Addictions, of any kind, can and will destroy marriages and relationships. This topic should never be treated casually. But with boldness and love. 

One more thought: i watched the new spider man movie the other day and a part came up where peters best friend was on the computer in the library alone trying to help him find out information. The librarian comes in and tells him he should not be in there. He stammers a bit then uses the excuse of "i was looking at porn". I was soooo mad that this scene made it seem okay to look at porn, by using it as an excuse. Ugh. I was so upset. 

[Snigmorder]

27 minutes ago, artista said:

One more thought: i watched the new spider man movie the other day and a part came up where peters best friend was on the computer in the library alone trying to help him find out information. The librarian comes in and tells him he should not be in there. He stammers a bit then uses the excuse of "i was looking at porn". I was soooo mad that this scene made it seem okay to look at porn, by using it as an excuse. Ugh. I was so upset. 

Besides video games, I also gave movies. Just sayin

[artista]

1 minute ago, Snigmorder said:

Besides video games, I also gave movies. Just sayin

I'm confused why you said this?

[Snigmorder]

3 minutes ago, artista said:

I'm confused why you said this?

 In my post to your video game thread I said I gave up video games. I'm simply adding on to that.

[artista]

Just now, Snigmorder said:

 In my post to your video game thread I said I gave up video games. I'm simply adding on to that.

Okay, makes sense!! What prompted you to givd up movies as well???

[Snigmorder]

7 minutes ago, artista said:

Okay, makes sense!! What prompted you to givd up movies as well???

I got to the point where I felt like anything contrary to the highest values and principles of the Eternal Civilization should, at the very least, not be tolerated.

Because anything contrary to those values and principles is necessarily Satanic. By tolerating those things we're tolerating the will of the adversary. Who's will is calculated to be contrarian to the way things really are.

Sorry if it sounds like i'm virtue signaling. But I can't virtue signal in anonymity.

[artista]

4 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

I got to the point where I felt like anything contrary to the highest values and principles of the Eternal Civilization should, at the very least, not be tolerated.

Because anything contrary to those values and principles is necessarily Satanic. By tolerating those things we're tolerating the will of the adversary. Who's will is calculated to be contrarian to the way things really are.

Sorry if it sounds like i'm virtue signaling. But I can't virtue signal in anonymity.

Love this!! Thank you for sharing!! Are you married? If so, doea your wife have the same view???