A MAD Porn Thread

[_Ray A]

Revelation to John Taylor:
<snip>
(Unpublished Revelations, 1:88. Musser, Four Hidden Revelations, 15.)

Uh, I'm not FLDS. I don't accept that revelation as doctrinal. I'm not even sure that the angel with the flaming sword is doctrinal either.

You don't have to be FLDS. It was being sold (apparently sold out) at
Deseret Book

Includes revelations given to "Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Joseph F. Smith and their contemporaries." Majority of revelations are in 1830s and 1840s while in Kirtland, Nauvoo and Far West. Most of the others from SLC.

[Analytics]

You don't have to be FLDS. It was being sold (apparently sold out) at
Deseret Book

Didn't Desseret Book used to sell Grant Palmer's book too?

[_Ray A]

Didn't Desseret Book used to seel Grant Palmer's book too?

I'm not sure. But Deseret has changed by leaps and bounds. Back in the 1970s-80s they only sold "Church approved" books. Even when I ordered from the local LDS bookshop, affliated with Deseret, anything not "Church approved" (note the quotation marks, it doesn't mean official FP approval, but books "suitable" for members to read), was given to me in a "brown paper bag". Or under the counter.

Deseret has now apparently gone apostate.

[_mentalgymnast]

I freely admit it: I am a sometime connoisseur of the pornographic arts.

Did you become a consumer of the pornographic arts pre-mission, post-mission, or during your mission? Pre-apostasy or post-apostasy?

Regards,
MG

The reason I ask is I'm curious as to whether or not your consumption of pornography was a precursor to the time when you determined you lacked faith/belief in the church/gospel, or if lack of faith/belief came first and then pornography was something that came along to help fill in the gap. We all have to have something to believe in or set our sights on, right?

Regards,
MG

[_Some Schmo]

The reason I ask is I'm curious as to whether or not your consumption of pornography was a precursor to the time when you determined you lacked faith/belief in the church/gospel, or if lack of faith/belief came first and then pornography was something that came along to help fill in the gap. We all have to have something to believe in or set our sights on, right?

You keep fishing for this causal relationship that doesn't exist, except in the imaginations of people who want to attribute more badness to porn than it deserves.

If a person doesn't believe, it's for all the rational reasons not to believe. Feeling guilt free about looking at porn is just a fringe benefit, not the cause, of apostasy.

When I realized that god most likely doesn't exist (based on statistical significance and p values and such), I lost all hope. But soon I discovered porn and I am now happy to say that there is something worth living for.

LOL

I've often thought that a religion based on porn had a real good chance of success. I would call it the Breastbyterian Church (I believe I've mentioned this before). It would be based on the holy trinity: the left breast, the right breast, and the Holy of Holies. Of course, talk of the trinity would spark arguments about whether the left and the right were really one, or all three were simply parts of the hole, but like a teenage girl with a training bra, they'd be making a mountain out of a molehill.

[_Dr. Shades]

Did you become a consumer of the pornographic arts pre-mission, post-mission, or during your mission? Pre-apostasy or post-apostasy?

Pre-mission and pre-apostasy. I learned to appreciate the nude female form ever since I saw my first photo of one, way back in grade school. I continued on as an active, believing member for many years after that.

The reason I ask is I'm curious as to whether or not your consumption of pornography was a precursor to the time when you determined you lacked faith/belief in the church/gospel, or if lack of faith/belief came first and then pornography was something that came along to help fill in the gap.

Although I became a fan of the pornographic arts pre-mission and pre-apostasy, my consumption thereof took place far, far less frequently at that time since Mormon teachings said to avoid them.

But no, pornography had absolutely nothing to do with my apostasy whatsoever. I went apostate thanks to my heavy research into Mormon history that forced me to reevaluate the legitimacy of the church's truth claims, nothing more.

We all have to have something to believe in or set our sights on, right?

No, we don't.

[_mentalgymnast]

Did you become a consumer of the pornographic arts pre-mission, post-mission, or during your mission? Pre-apostasy or post-apostasy?

Pre-mission and pre-apostasy. I learned to appreciate the nude female form ever since I saw my first photo of one, way back in grade school. I continued on as an active, believing member for many years after that.

The reason I ask is I'm curious as to whether or not your consumption of pornography was a precursor to the time when you determined you lacked faith/belief in the church/gospel, or if lack of faith/belief came first and then pornography was something that came along to help fill in the gap.

Although I became a fan of the pornographic arts pre-mission and pre-apostasy, my consumption thereof took place far, far less frequently at that time since Mormon teachings said to avoid them.

But no, pornography had absolutely nothing to do with my apostasy whatsoever. I went apostate thanks to my heavy research into Mormon history that forced me to reevaluate the legitimacy of the church's truth claims, nothing more.

We all have to have something to believe in or set our sights on, right?

No, we don't.

Thanks Shades. I appreciate your honesty. What points and/or facts in the following extract from this article:

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/new ... eaa0c2bb40

...do you take issue with?

Dr. Victor Cline has posited four progressive effects of pornography: (1) addiction, where the need to view pornographic materials leads to a loss of free control over behaviour; (2) escalation, where the person delves into progressively harder pornography, usually to attain the same level of sensation and arousal; (3) desensitization, whereby the user is no longer morally sensitive to the shocking, illegal, repulsive, perverted or immoral quality of the material, but instead views it as acceptable and begins to look upon others as objects; and (4) acting out, where the fantasizing becomes overt behaviour.
Additionally from a moral point of view, there are three reasons why pornography is wrong and sinful behaviour
First, pornography offends the dignity of the participants (actors, vendors, the public). Each one is exploited or exploits others in some way for personal pleasure or gain. In all cases, the dignity of the human being -- whether the person posing, the person producing, the person distributing, or the person enjoying -- is debased.
Second, those who engage in pornography immerse themselves in a fantasy world, withdrawing from reality. While genuine love always involves a self-giving of oneself for the good of others, pornography entices a person to withdraw into a selfish world of perverted fantasy which may later be acted out to the detriment of oneself and others. This problem has increased dramatically, since the Internet offers "virtual reality" sexual interaction.
Third, pornography offends against the virtue of chastity and constitutes an assault on marriage. Each of us must respect the sanctity of our own human sexuality, which involves the integration of his physical and spiritual being. Furthermore, conjugal love which reflects the union of husband and wife, and the enactment of their vows is sacred. The conjugal act ought to express that faithful, permanent, exclusive, self-giving and life-giving love between husband and wife.

If you take issue with any of the points and/or facts in this article, where is your evidence that your personal POV is more reliable than those that have studied the effects of pornography? For an extended article written by Victor Cline, go here:

http://www.obscenitycrimes.org/clineart.cfm

There have been a number of people on this thread that have pretty much said that pornography is really nothing to be overly concerned with at all, that it's not a scourge and we're getting too worked up about it. I'm guessing Dr. Cline would disagree wholeheartedly. So who's right and who's wrong?

I'm thinking that it might be wise to go with the experts.

Regards,
MG

[_antishock8]

You know porn if fine. C'mon. What's the deal with the Mo's. Y'all look at that crap. Stop frontin'.

That being said... What's funny is since I've been with my gf, aside from looking at it with her maybe two or three times, I've maybe looked at pRon three times. I'm just not interested in it. So weird. My heart and my mind is directed toward her, and so... pRon does pretty much nothing for me. Zero. Zip. Nada.

I don't know. I think pr0n is fine whenever, but I guess if you're into someone it really just... Goes away. *shrugs* Maybe that's my thing. I don't know.

[_Mister Scratch]

I understand that Cline is from Salt Lake City. Is he LDS? Sadly, I have seen many a case where an LDS 'expert' will throw logic and ratiocination out the window in order to support Brethren-sanctioned theories and edicts.

[_Gadianton]

MG, you and others should be explicit in what you mean by "exploit", honestly, it just sounds like religious rhetoric that actually translates to nothing.

Asb mentioned something about objectification, I don't know if he meant that as translating to exploitation or not, but it doesn't work here any more than virtually anything else. When most people see a doctor, all they see is a guy who is supposed to fix their problems, and little beyond that. Most employers, especially large employers, see their lower tier workers as nothing more than cogs that can be replaced. Cogs that perform a specific function, their families aren't seen, nor their hobbies or anything else.