DiscussMormonism.com

I remembered something today. Many of my bishop interviews went like this:

B: do you follow the law of chastity?
Z: Uh, yeah.
B: do you have a problem with masturbation?
Z: [hmmm it's been a whole month, so] No.
B: Have you looked at pornography?
Z: No.
B: Any kind of pornography? What about inappropriate material such as swimsuit models or other material that arouses the sacred procreative powers?

Can you see why it has been difficult for me to define the term? Those moments with the bishop were defining for me. These were the only times anyone really helped me know what pornography supposedly was AND where the line was.

So to me, the church defined pornography as imagery that has the capacity to arouse the factory.

zeezrom wrote:
B: do you have a problem with masturbation?
Z: [hmmm it's been a whole month, so] No.

An entire month is a long time. You might want to get a check up with your physician. This could be a sign of something serious.

So, basically women are porn. Nice.

Oh, and as a mother of a teenage boy I do believe the factory often has a mind of its own. Maybe getting up out of a chair is porn, too.

The Bishop was probably referring to the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue. Many of the stores in Utah refuse to carry that particular issue. Some hide it under the counter or behind a covering of some sort like they do the covers of Cosmo and even Redbook at times.

olde joke but still funny

bishop: so do you have a problem with masturbation?

priest: no, bishop, it works fine every time- what about you bishop-any problem?
maybe you are doing it wrong.

bishop: probably should hold off on those baptisms for the dead for a while

priest: why is that- do they have a problem with masturbation?


silent walk to office door-no touching on the shoulder.



k

zeezrom wrote:
So to me, the church defined pornography as imagery that has the capacity to arouse the factory.

Ahhhhh.....no. But if your account is true, your bishop did. One bishop does not make a church. I know of bishops who would never ask such questions. What problem an exmember like you have is confusing your experiences with the LDS church in general. No one where I live care about swimsuits and the bodies inside them nor how many times someone's masturbates.

I think that some bishops may ask a general question about chasity but that is it.

just me wrote:So, basically women are porn. Nice.

Women should be edited out.

viewtopic.php?p=458047#p458047

No one where I live care about swimsuits and the bodies inside them nor how many times someone's masturbates.

If the Bishops where you live do not care about modest dress and masturbation, they are not doing their jobs and taking seriously their sacred callings as Bishops, and should step aside for those who do take those callings, and the above longstanding and thoroughly articulated Church standards and aspect of the law of chastity respectively.

just me wrote:So, basically women are porn. Nice.

So might there be a line we may subconciously draw when looking upon our spouse's attractiveness - particularly after all the years of messed up pre-marital programming?

I imagine how this twisted up indoctrination can effect newly married kids wondering how "God" may permit them to discover and develop a healthy intimacy. As a former Mormon I'm drawing on my own personal experience here. There's no handbook of instructions on the subject, except for forklore passed down by our parents (if they dare!), the Young Adult ward bishop that approved your temple recommend, perhaps the feelings you might have felt when making out with a previous significant other, or maybe even that filthy magazine you stumbled upon as a young kid.

Adding Mormon garments to your bride's wardrobe on the day of your wedding didn't help either, did it? They now remind me of that pigeon turd that hits the windshield as you're driving your new car off the lot.