DiscussMormonism.com

Currently on DS news is an article title "Pornography hurts relationships, employment and well-being"

From the article:

"We conducted our own research with almost 600 women along the Wasatch Front," he said. "Fifty-four percent of those women say they know somebody who struggles with pornography."

Given that wards along the Wasatch Front easyily could be 600 people, and given that there are so many wards along the Wasatch Front, is it really any suprise that 600 know somebody? The first time I ever visited a ward on the wasatch front the Relief Society president gave a long testimony about pornography (she was recently divorced from her husband and blamed pornography) But this is sort of beside the point.

The article wants to paint a blanket about pornography. The article seems to ignore a simple question, is pornography inherently bad and destructive, or is the real problem addictive personalities?

It would seem to me one could substitute the word pornography with religion, school, reading.

I mean excessive religion could be bad (look at the Westborro people), Chaucer made a statement about a perpetual student, reading the standards sized scriptures too much could cause eye damage.

So is the issue nudity or is the real issue people who can not moderate?

So you're the guy who, on one thread, is acting all holier than thou about someone using a sexual phraise as a metaphor, and here you're tyring to set the stage to justify "moderate" viewing of pornography. Can you spell "hypocrite"?

What a joke you are.

Nomad wrote:So you're the guy who, on one thread, is acting all holier than thou about someone using a sexual phraise as a metaphor, and here you're tyring to set the stage to justify "moderate" viewing of pornography. Can you spell "hypocrite"?

What a joke you are.

What a joke you are! I am getting a laugh out of nearly every post you put up for me to chuckle at. Keep it up, you joker, you!

So you're the guy who, on one thread, is acting all holier than thou about someone using a sexual phraise as a metaphor, and here you're tyring to set the stage to justify "moderate" viewing of pornography. Can you spell "hypocrite"?

What a joke you are.

Nomad can you address the issue of the OP or do you just wish to post insults and derail the thread. If you wish to discuss my posting, please make another thread and we can discuss such.

While I do not doubt pornography can harm, I personally know someone who is divorced because of a pornography addiction, I generally do not support blanket statements, or people suggesting a blanket statement is the rule.

So lets look at the some questions based on the substance from the OP and article?

A1. Religion is bad.
A2. Extremism in religion can be bad.

B1. Prolonged reading of the scriptures is bad.
B2. Prolonged reading of the tiny font scriptures in a low light setting can cause damage to ones eyesight.

C1. Education is a waste of time and resources.
C2. A perpetual student who does not apply the knowledge gained and just bums around has wasted his education.

This next seems to be a favorite of many LDS.
D1. Caffeine is bad.
D2. The caffeine found in chocolate is not bad.

Is my life destroyed and my family harmed because I watched a woman pose seductively in her underwear? (hint this happens almost on a daily basis because of Victoria Secret commercials)

Is my life destroyed and my family harmed because I watched a very obese naked woman being catered too by a group of men? (This happens in the back ground in "The Adventures Of Baron Munchausen", I have seen the movie several times, and never noticed the obese nude woman, but my wife did)

Is my life destroyed and my family harmed because I have taken showers with men? (this happened on a daily basis for about a month in the MTC.)

Strangely enough, I posted one of the first 10 or so comments on this article that made the point that this is largely a made up problem that the Mormon church espouses. To my surprise, DNews let me publish this comment. However, when I tried to publish some later comments to flesh out this argument a bit, they blocked me.

Kind of a strange system over there.

Are we seriously trying to Justify Pornography? Jesus' word's blow your attempt to pieces: "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." Lust is the vehicle and motor of pornography. Nothing but destruction and misery awaits those who willingly involve themselves in it.

mjz1 wrote:Are we seriously trying to Justify Pornography? Jesus' word's blow your attempt to pieces: "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." Lust is the vehicle and motor of pornography. Nothing but destruction and misery awaits those who willingly involve themselves in it.

Hmmm, your point of view makes it kind of hard to understand why Joseph Smith married women who already had living husbands....

jon wrote:

mjz1 wrote:Are we seriously trying to Justify Pornography? Jesus' word's blow your attempt to pieces: "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." Lust is the vehicle and motor of pornography. Nothing but destruction and misery awaits those who willingly involve themselves in it.

Hmmm, your point of view makes it kind of hard to understand why Joseph Smith married women who already had living husbands....

Where's your Citation? Polygamy was commanded by God if that's what your referring to.

3sheets2thewind wrote:Given that wards along the Wasatch Front easyily could be 600 people, and given that there are so many wards along the Wasatch Front, is it really any suprise that 600 know somebody?

Probably not.

The first time I ever visited a ward on the wasatch front the Relief Society president gave a long testimony about pornography (she was recently divorced from her husband and blamed pornography) But this is sort of beside the point.

Pornography can indeed effect relationships, be it time, be it ones getting off otherwise rather than with their spouse, etc.

The article wants to paint a blanket about pornography. The article seems to ignore a simple question, is pornography inherently bad and destructive, or is the real problem addictive personalities?

Yes, pornography is inherently bad and destruction. As someone who's been affected by pornography, I can testify it's effect, because I want to be better than that. I was exposed at a young age, and it's effected me my entire life.

Obviously if people have no morals about porn, then to many of those persons porn would be less "destructive" to them, their relationships, etc. Although, it can still effect their life and relationships from the outside, i.e. with those who don't have those lower values.

Yes, and also obviously addiction will make things worse, but what creates the additiction? It's the exposure to porn. Those who have a strong sexuality and even potential problems with other aspects of their lives can be more successable to a sexual addiction. Porn also leads to other behaviors, masterbation, increased sexual interests in abnormal sexual behaviors, etc.

It's just like smoking..... There is no-one that will say smoking is okay, that it's only the addiction that is bad. They eliminate the smoking, and they get rid of the addiction.

It would seem to me one could substitute the word pornography with religion, school, reading.

No, I don't think so.... Because wether it's smoking or porn, such get's into the very deep being of the person, and because of the feelings it gives, it's extremely addicting.

Religion for example is not the same, because in order to get and have the "high" recieved, one must keep involving themselves, and doing that is hard, not easy and not intimately natural like sexual feeling is. Religion is also different in that it's not "visual"..... When person views porn, masturbates, etc. they are "visualizing" the thing and it stimulates.

True people can have other addictions such as you mention, but there can be good addictions and bad addictions. Porn is not a good addiction in any meaning of the word.

I mean excessive religion could be bad (look at the Westborro people), Chaucer made a statement about a perpetual student, reading the standards sized scriptures too much could cause eye damage.

That's not actually an example of "excessive" religion, that's an example of "bad" religion.
Excessive religion would be spending all your time doing only or mostly that alone. There is no balance. Excess is excess..... Porn is not simply about excess, it's about character. What are you thinking about when you view porn? Are you thinking good thoughts? Are you doing acts that are good and wholesome?

It's odd to me how people try to rationalize their porn viewing.....

So is the issue nudity or is the real issue people who can not moderate?

Obviously, as I mentioned above, it's about values. Further, someone who has values, if they are balanced they can see nudity without being overly bothered by it, however they will know that it's also not appropriate. There is also a possibility of desensitation as well.... that that could also be a bad thing.

jon wrote:

mjz1 wrote:Are we seriously trying to Justify Pornography? Jesus' word's blow your attempt to pieces: "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." Lust is the vehicle and motor of pornography. Nothing but destruction and misery awaits those who willingly involve themselves in it.

Hmmm, your point of view makes it kind of hard to understand why Joseph Smith married women who already had living husbands....

Because they were "sealings" not actual marriages..... They were Religious Ordinances, not marriage.