MDD Bans Poster for Opposing Church's Views on Porn

[_Themis]

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.

His speculation clearly violated the rules there, and rightly he got banned for a time. I do think it is poor form to speculate on public figures like that with no real evidence.

[_Gadianton]

During my life that was spent in church, I often heard mention of brother so-and-so who had a problem with the word of wisdom or a problem with this or that. What this meant was that they guy might drink a beer with his buddies on the weekend or a couple cups of coffee during the day, but because the demands of the WoW and LoC are absolute, any crossing of the line constitutes a "problem". To suggest a church leader might have or had a problem with porn could mean that said leader viewed porn once back in 1974 or falls to the temptation once or twice a year, but it doesn't equate to addiction.

I remember long ago during a general priesthood session, a GA telling a story of being in the army and somehow a topless pinup got placed in his field of view against his will and the image became burned into his mind for years. This was quite a burden for him, so you can see that for the very righteous, having a problem with something may in fact constitute a minor infraction while still resulting in severe psychological trauma.

So unless William James clarifies that he meant "porn addiction", I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt and take his words to mean having crossed paths with porn on some level, even if only in temptation, but whatever the history is here, it has resulted in a high psychological impact.

by the way, out of hundreds of GAs, what do you think the likelihood is that none of them ever had a "problem" with porn? (meaning, having ever willingly viewed at any time as such a transgression would require repentance)

[_Scottie]

Just like you can't call Joseph Smith a con man, even though there is a preponderance of evidence to support it, you can't say the apostles are addicted to porn. ESPECIALLY without any kind of reasoning behind it save "he protesteth too much" "You say you aren't the murderer? Hmm... that's EXACTLY what a murderer would say!!"

I ask you, Scratch, did the inclusion of an accusation that Holland might have had/currently has a problem himself lend any weight to the post? Could that line have disappeared completely and the point of his post remained exactly the same? I believe so.

It was a throwaway line that did nothing more than malign Holland. He even came out and said he has no evidence what-so-ever to back it up. I'm actually not quite sure why he included it.

[_Scottie]

During my life that was spent in church, I often heard mention of brother so-and-so who had a problem with the word of wisdom or a problem with this or that. What this meant was that they guy might drink a beer with his buddies on the weekend or a couple cups of coffee during the day, but because the demands of the WoW and LoC are absolute, any crossing of the line constitutes a "problem". To suggest a church leader might have or had a problem with porn could mean that said leader viewed porn once back in 1974 or falls to the temptation once or twice a year, but it doesn't equate to addiction.

I remember long ago during a general priesthood session, a GA telling a story of being in the army and somehow a topless pinup got placed in his field of view against his will and the image became burned into his mind for years. This was quite a burden for him, so you can see that for the very righteous, having a problem with something may in fact constitute a minor infraction while still resulting in severe psychological trauma.

So unless William James clarifies that he meant "porn addiction", I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt and take his words to mean having crossed paths with porn on some level, even if only in temptation, but whatever the history is here, it has resulted in a high psychological impact.

Good post. I'll buy this.

by the way, out of hundreds of GAs, what do you think the likelihood is that none of them ever had a "problem" with porn? (meaning, having ever willingly viewed at any time as such a transgression would require repentance)

I assume some, at least. But lets not try and guess which ones have and haven't.

[_Equality]

Gad,

I agree with everything you say. I have no doubt that many apparently "righteous" priesthood holders and church leaders, including some apostles, have a "problem" with pornography, if "problem" is defined as "look at it once or more even if they beat themselves up (and not just off) over it." And I think William James makes a good point: often, the people who are most virulently anti-porn are the ones who consume it compulsively themselves. So speculating about Holland's fixation on porn, or, say, Richard G. Scott's bizarre fixation on sexual issues, is reasonable. That said, I don't know that speculating on such things at the MDD board is likely to result in anything other than what happened in that thread. Or that it's something we should get all exorcised about. My perspective is certainly influenced by the fact that I am a moderator at an ex-mo discussion board that does not allow TBMs to bear their testimonkeys. I just think there are reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech. We even have them here at this board with the three different forums. I don't see the problem with MDD moderating William James' post. It seems to be well within their stated rules. Now, if Shades were to moderate a similar post here in the Terrestrial Kingdom on this board, I would be all about protesting the decision.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Scottie--

You're going to have to remind me--did you wind up getting re-married to a TBM gal? I recall you posting about your divorce, and I remember you mentioning that you were getting re-married, and I seem to recall that it was a marriage to an LDS gal. Something--call it instinct--leads me to believe that your recent posts have something to do with this.

All that said, the General Authorities' talks on porn have *always* been aimed at *all* men. The clear implication has always been that all men are vulnerable. Any man--including one of the Lord's Anointed--is theoretically vulnerable to the temptations of porn. At least, that is what the GA's declarations would have us believe. So I have to wonder how the actions of the MDD mods are in keeping with these views.

[_ajax18]

Even if the poster had left out his suspicion that Elder Holland was so vehement in his opinion due to personal struggles of his own, I think this thread would have been banned for the simple reason that there aren't any very satisfying answers as to why porn, masturbation, or premarital sex merit the degree of sin the Church teaches them to be. If there were, I'm sure such answers would be advertised without anyone even asking the question. The only response left for the TBM world is to get angry and take offense to the question as a personal attack on their faith.

One might contend that religious laws such as those against porn are to force men to be more dependent on who they happen to be married to knowing that few if any men will be married to women as desirable as those in a magazine. The ultimate purpose of many Old Testament laws does seem to be increasing and providing for a growing population. This doesn't always mean sexual repression seeing that the Old Testament advocates polygamy when the man can afford it. But rarely have I heard TBMs want to give reasons like this or speculate to this point. Such conversations are simply cut off and forbidden from being discussed once they reach this level of question in the TBM world, even on the internet which is usually a much more open venue for public thought than real world conversations due to the protection from backlash provided by anonymity. If you asked this question in Church, the only response you would get is an inquiry into who asked the question and where the leadership could find them to punish them. Actually answering the question would simply be out of the question.

[_Scottie]

Scottie--

You're going to have to remind me--did you wind up getting re-married to a TBM gal? I recall you posting about your divorce, and I remember you mentioning that you were getting re-married, and I seem to recall that it was a marriage to an LDS gal. Something--call it instinct--leads me to believe that your recent posts have something to do with this.

Yes, I did, and no, it doesn't.

I will criticize the church when necessary, but I will also defend the church when I believe it is being wrongfully maligned. I will also defend DCP (or any other poster, for that matter) when I feel he is being wrongfully maligned.

All that said, the General Authorities' talks on porn have *always* been aimed at *all* men. The clear implication has always been that all men are vulnerable. Any man--including one of the Lord's Anointed--is theoretically vulnerable to the temptations of porn. At least, that is what the GA's declarations would have us believe. So I have to wonder how the actions of the MDD mods are in keeping with these views.

I don't doubt that there are GA's with porn problems. I'm not arguing that. Your argument is that the MDD mods are wrong to suspend someone for pointing this out. Frankly, I agree with you. The GA's should not be immune from criticism. BUT, we all know that MDD holds a different view. GA's ARE immune from criticism there. Not only that, but it wasn't even a valid criticism. The argument basically boiled down to, "I can totally see him being addicted to porn because..... well, just because!" That isn't going to fly on MDD.

[_Some Schmo]

That a GA was mentioned is just smoke and mirrors to cover the real issue they had here, which is that someone had a nuanced view of something most LDS think is a black and white issue.

Members can't stand thinkers who arrive at conclusions that oppose church approved thought. That's all. Shame on him. The bloody heretic should be banned.

[_stemelbow]

Not only was he out of line, it seems to be but he was unreasonable.

He complains that Holland probably has a porn addiction problem because he's so opposed to porn, but then he goes on to explain how Holland's views aren't indicative of someone who has such a problem. Essentially he's claiming Holland doesn't know what he's talking about. It seems like he defeated himself.

I personally don't see why anyone here cares if the church takes a hard stance opposing pornography. I personally appreciate the hard stance. I do think pornography is a problem.