MDD Bans Poster for Opposing Church's Views on Porn

[_Doctor Scratch]

Over on the ironically named Mormon Dialogue board, a thread has been locked and a poster has been suspended for voicing concern over the Church's rather draconian stance on porn. This was the OP:

Here's the video, narrated by anti-porn hawk (and I have to even privately speculate sometimes, whether he might have a problem with it himself, because he "protesteth too much"), Elder Jeffrey R. Holland. (Note: I am not accusing him of being a hypocrite, and I disclaim any knowledge of his private life- I am merely struck by how vehemently he attacks porn, and it causes me to suspect that he may likely have some personal traumatic experience on the subject. In fairness, I do believe Holland is an apostle of God, and that he is a good man generally.)



In characteristic fashion, this video propogates the commonly-held stereotype in the LDS Church that the typical porn user is a man:
(1) who has a hot, loving, and sexually available and interested wife;
(2) who choses porn in place of sex with his hot, loving, and sexually available and interested wife, leaving her rejected;
(3) who abandons his adorable family of his own volition because of his sinful addiction.

It's time we get honest and fair about this, and set the record straight. I think a few critical points are in order here, including, without limitation:

(1) I believe that the scenario presented in the video is extremely atypical, and virtually all real-life situations are far more complex and nuanced;
(2) The majority of active, believing LDS men are probably looking at porn, but are simply not getting caught (and though they may privately be racked with unspeakable guilt, many continue to function well in their marriages and daily responsibilities);
(3) Even LDS men who do not look at porn are generally still having pornographic fantasies in their minds (and keep them to themselves);
(4) The "porn destroys families" argument fails to adequately account for the many couples in which porn is not taboo, and is accepted and/or viewed by both partners. This ought to prompt us to ask the question, "Does porn inherently destroy marriages, or is it possibly the insecurity and/or needless offense taken at it which causes the discord?";
(5) The video's scenario ignores the critical and widespread issue of what men in sexless marriages are supposed to do- de-facto celibacy would only be imposed by a cruel God which is utterly inconsistent with the loving God I believe in;
(6) It is a gross mischaracterization to assume that the average porn user is turning down their willing-and-available spouse for intercourse in order to substitute porn for real sex;
(7) Turning down an opportunity to play with your kids so that you can look at porn needs to be viewed in context. There are all kinds of reasons a parent would turn down chances to play with their kids, including: (a) to have sex with their spouse; (b) to work; © to sleep; (d) to use the restroom; (e) to fulfill church callings; etc. Yet there is no condemnation for any of these other activities. The issue is NOT whether it would be possible to spend a few more minutes of your time with your family if you would abstain from looking at porn- the issue is, are you maintaining a reasonable life balance and generally fulfilling your responsibilities? If so, then I don't see the problem. Put another way: Bishop hardly sees his kids because he is always working or fulfilling church calling? No problem. Man spends 15 minutes looking at women in lingerie? Problem. I don't think that's very consistent or reasonable.

I don't expect my post will do much to help TBMs contemplate these issues thoroughly. But I feel a duty to speak my mind, as it may help at least some open-minded people re-think this. I sincerely believe that the LDS Church's overbroad condemnation of pornography destroys more LDS families than use of porn itself ever did.

[Note: I haven't bothered to include the YouTube video; I know it's been posted here before, though.]

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/560 ... the-issue/

This seems reasonable enough, right? At the very least, it's the sort of well-composed opening post that ought to provoke interesting and thoughtful conversation. Or, not:

Pornography destroys families because it keeps them apart in the life to come, even if it doesn't do that in this life. It's really that simple.

Huh? Perhaps someone can cite for me the Official Church Teaching which states that porn will result in the cancellation of temple sealings...

At least cinepro seems to have a handle on the topic:

Wait, you're looking for "nuance" in a Church video? Seriously?

Then TBM poster DaddyG weighs in to add more fuel to the LDS position:

From personal experience as a man, as a member of the Bishopric and as a friend to others struggling... You are dead wrong. The video portrays some very accurate and frightening prospects.

It is destructive and like any addiction it can take over someones normal patterns and desires.

It has nothing to do with a substitute for sex or even an attractive spouse. It has everything to do with instant gratification and excape behavior.

Do yourself a favor and look up internet or pornography addiction from a neutral third party. You may be surprised at how spot on these examples are.

Interesting reply, right? Sadly, just as things were getting interesting, Ares pops in to shut things down:

Don't slander the General Authorities. Don't advocate for pornography.

Take a time out.

This is fascinating. Unless I'm misreading him/her, Ares has outlined a new form of censorship on the MDD board. Now it seems that any non-condemnatory discussion of porn is completely off-limits, as is, apparently, anything that is critical of the General Authorities. And one has to ask, "Why?" Clearly, our very own Why Me is a huge fan of discussing porn. Why might it be that Ares--and by extension the MDD administration as a whole--is so insistent upon managing this particular topic in this fashion?

[_Equality]

I may be alone here, and may get flamed. So be it. The way I see it is this: the MDD board is full of religious fanatics. It's a mopolegetic discussion board. It makes no real pretense to being open to opposing views (I've been banned more than once) and while they allow critics to post, they clearly stack the deck to protect the "faithful." It's their sandbox. They make the rules, and so it's not surprising that someone who says Jeff Holland might have a porn problem gets moderated. I like this board better because it's a true dialogue here without censorship. So I think they should change their name to something like "TBM Echo Chamber" or "Safe Zone for Delusional Discussion" or something like that. So posts about how crazy TBM the MDD board is are really a yawner from my perspective. They are what they are and they do what they do. This is not surprising at all. If someone wants to discuss the bizarre and twisted Mormon mindset on pornography and sex, the MDD board is probably not the best place to attempt it. is that really surprising to anyone?

[_Gadianton]

I'm confused, Doctor Scratch. What happened to the scholarly Internet Mormon attitude that prophets aren't perfect? You'd think they'd give James a pat on the back for saying, "I do believe Holland is an apostle of God, and that he is a good man generally." That's what Internet Mormons are trying to tell everyone, if he said, "I do believe Holland is an apostle of God and only slightly less perfect than Christ was," he'd probably get banned from that and scolded for "black and white thinking".

[_Scottie]

Uhh... there is a difference between disagreeing with the church stance on porn and calling Holland out as a porn addict himself.

My guess is THAT is why he got banned.

Also, "take a time out" generally means a short suspension, not an outright ban.

[_Gadianton]

Where did he call Holland a porn addict? CFR.

[_Scottie]

The first line??

Here's the video, narrated by anti-porn hawk (and I have to even privately speculate sometimes, whether he might have a problem with it himself, because he "protesteth too much"), Elder Jeffrey R. Holland

[_Gadianton]

Again, I fail to see James make the accusation you claim. I think you are exaggerating.

[_bcspace]

MDD Bans Poster for Opposing Church's Views on Porn

Who was banned?

[_Scottie]

Again, I fail to see James make the accusation you claim. I think you are exaggerating.

Okay, fair enough. I'm open to other interpretations.

What do you think "he might have a problem with it himself" means?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Pretty weak, Scottie. I have to say that I'm extremely confused about your defense of the MDD moderating team on this one. Sure: William James speculated a bit, and wondered about Holland's admittedly bizarre, trembly-voiced denunciation of porn, and whether this might relate in some fashion to Holland's own experiences, struggles, and views, but so what? Is this banning/suspension a function of the fact that Holland is a current GA? Or is something else at work here? Even if we accept that William James's off-the-cuff observation about Holland (whose neck was no doubt replete and distended with cords of reddened anger and outrage) was "out of line," what about the rest of his post? Ares, as you'll recall, cited both his position and his mention of Elder Holland as the reason for the banning.