A MAD Porn Thread

[_harmony]

Please create the way of s#x with rats. (Traditional japs use ducks. Call Shades!)

What the Hell are you talking about??

*bursting out laughing*

[_mentalgymnast]

You've done a good job at rationally explaining your personal reasons for considering pornography a blessing in your life. The question that sits in the background, of course, is whether there is a higher moral ground to climb for those that desire something more rewarding/fulfilling than the temporary and fleeting carnal pleasures attached to viewing pornography.

Regards,
MG

It depends, MG, on whether you really personally hold this view, or whether you hold it because you believe that the Book of Mormon is "historical", and that the "revelations" are true.

Hi Ray,

It's been a busy day. A couple of comments. First, I think there are levels of morality. There is a high ground and the gutter at the other extreme. There are places/stations in between. And yes, I think that living a high moral standard ultimately results in a greater degree of happiness than living a lower standard. Now you know I personally hold this view irregardless of whether or not the Book of Mormon is true and whether or not there are living prophets. Life experience and watching and hearing about other people and their struggles with immorality, including addictions to pornography, and its consequences has given me enough "proof" to believe that this is so. I suppose we'll simply have to agree to disagree.

You and others here on this board just keep on keeping on with your daily or weekly dose of pornography if it seems good for what ails you.

What you reject is a sign of your rationality. What you continue to accept, is a sign of your weakness, if not critically examined.

As I've seen mentioned many times, it seems to drive apostates to distraction that there are many believers who have looked at the same evidence that they have and find that it is still possible to live a life of faith without checking in our brains and/or giving up any sense of integrity .

Regards,
MG

[_Ray A]

Hi Ray,

It's been a busy day.

And it's soon to become a busy two days/nights for me, MG, as I'm going to work in about an hour and a half, 13 hours tonight, and 15 hours tomorrow, so I can't give a considered reply for another two days.

[_Danna]

Please create the way of s#x with rats. (Traditional japs use ducks. Call Shades!)

So what do Japanese do with ducks?

[_ludwigm]

Please create the way of s#x with rats. (Traditional japs use ducks. Call Shades!)

What the Hell are you talking about??

James Clavell: Shogun

It is fiction, but seems to present a believable milieu of the XVII. century Japan...

[_Dr. Shades]

James Clavell: Shogun

It is fiction, but seems to present a believable milieu of the XVII. century Japan...

Thanks, but I still have absolutely no idea what in the living Hell you're talking about.

[_Sethbag]

Life experience and watching and hearing about other people and their struggles with immorality, including addictions to pornography, and its consequences has given me enough "proof" to believe that this is so.

Out of curiosity, if you were to think long and hard about this, how much of these struggles do you think could be directly tied to the belief of the people involved believing that the "immoral" acts, and pornography, are intrinsically evil?

I ask because I've heard other people talk about non-alcoholics' "struggles" with drinking beer or wine, or coffee, or heck, even tea, when in fact the overwhelming majority of people don't have any "struggle" at all with it. How many Brits "struggle" with the daily cuppa? How many Mormons "struggle" with the occasional beer, however? How much of the struggle is actually in someone's mind?

[_Dr. Shades]

If there is no truth/direction from God in regards to whether or not consuming the pornographic arts is sinful, then your rational for participating in this venue of entertainment is, well, rational.

Thank you.

If the LDS General Authorities are simply producing man made moral platitudes handed down over the generations from our puritan progenitors and conservative religious writers/thinkers, then there is no reason to take them too seriously in the final analysis.

Agreed.

Probably the same with Dr. Cline, since much of his internal framework of perception/experience is a result of his belief in the truth claims of the LDS church, etc.

Precisely.

Now OTOH, if there is a God, and if he does instruct and give counsel through modern day prophets and apostles such as GBH and Elder Oaks as it relates to porn being a serious sin and a scourge/plague to be avoided, then the whole rational for avoiding porn becomes quite obvious.

Then you agree with me: There's nothing intrinsically wrong with pornography itself; it's only "wrong" when some authority declares it to be that way.

Simply, there is a Father in Heaven who has given instructions/guidance in regards to the sanctity of womanhood and the female body, which if followed will bring eternal happiness/joy (rather than simply temporary pleasure and titillation) to those that chose to obey.

No, not "simply" at all. If it were so simple, then there wouldn't be any atheists or any competing religions.

So yeah, there are different experts and different voices to listen to. Like most things, it becomes an individual choice based upon one's own life experience and moral compass.

So you agree with me: There's nothing intrinsically wrong with pornography itself; it's only "an individual choice based upon one's own life experience and moral compass."

You've done a good job at rationally explaining your personal reasons for considering pornography a blessing in your life. The question that sits in the background, of course, is whether there is a higher moral ground to climb for those that desire something more rewarding/fulfilling than the temporary and fleeting carnal pleasures attached to viewing pornography.

Oh, I'm sure there is. You might be satisfied with either/or, but as for me, I choose BOTH something more rewarding/fulfilling AND temporary and fleeting carnal pleasures.

There doesn't need to be an either/or. As for me, I choose to have my cake and eat it too (no pun intended).

[_Sethbag]

Well, Shades wants to get his jollies, and some Peter Priesthood wants to get to the Celestial Kingdom and be a god, having Celestial Sex with his own personal harem for all eternity.

The difference is that Shades can in fact get his jollies in the here and now, but this Peter Priesthood will never, ever become a god, and will never have sex with his own Celestial harem in the afterlife. This is all sheer fantasy.

MentalGymnast, there is no God up in Heaven telling Thomas S. Monson anything. He's going on institutional inertia, the power of organizations, bureacracy, combined with some modicum of making it up as he goes along. At least, the older generation of Mormon prophets did - nowadays the correlation committee has pretty much put the kibosh on shooting from the hip. He no more talks with God, or Jesus, or any spirit, anymore than the Pope does, or some Imam in Iran, or the Archbishop of Canterbury, or some witch doctor in the African jungle.

[_Danna]

James Clavell: Shogun

It is fiction, but seems to present a believable milieu of the XVII. century Japan...

Thanks, but I still have absolutely no idea what in the living Hell you're talking about.

Found it!

In Shogun, the barbarian hero is captured by the Japanese who attempt to befriend him, offering a female companion, then male companion. When he gets outraged at being offered a boy, one of the less bright Samurai recalls a rumor that barbarians like dogs and ducks. The Japanese spend some time discussing how to be hospitable and offer the hero a duck without causing the same offense as happened with the boy. Their dilemma is not the matter of the duck, but that the barbarian might fly off the handle if they get the wrong animal.

It is very funny to read.