[DevilsAdvocate]

cwald wrote:

…FWIW: Pornography causes the release of the endorphin, dopamine. Porn triggers dopamine (the “craving neurochemical”) to stimulate the pleasure/reward circuitry in the brain…This is the same chemical reaction that happens when one uses cocaine. It is very addictive. …the body and then over-corrects itself by shutting down the natural process of dopamine production, which limits the naturally occurring release of the dopamine – or a natural high. This is also why pornography can be so damaging to relationships. One is basically manipulating their sexual biochemistry…

Old-Timer wrote:

DA, I agree that there is much that objectively is porn no matter individual reactions and perspectives – but I also know too many people who truly are addicted to write it off as “only in the mind”…

…Finally, I just don’t think there is ANY redeeming value in objective or gratuitous porn – including the picture you mention. Nudity absolutely has merit and meaning and value; porn, not so, imo.

I wasn’t trying to say that the effects of porn are only in the mind, actually I believe it is a natural reaction similar to what cwald described but without quite so many negative side-effects on average. What I think is exaggerated and mostly imaginary are the ideas that porn is typically addictive in a harmful way and that it is some kind of slippery-slope that will automatically lead people’s lives into a downward spiral. My guess is that these ideas have been spread by busybodies that already object to porn on moral grounds and most of the evidence to support these conclusions is probably based on a few extreme examples, not the average Joe that looks at Playboys once in a while.

[DevilsAdvocate]

misfit7 wrote:

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

In my opinion, Church members can easily be completely outside the box as far as not believing at all in the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, the Bible, or even God and still be more comfortable about staying LDS than they are with any realistic alternatives. I don’t agree at all with many ex-Mormons who seem to think any members that don’t believe in everything the Church teaches should automatically feel obligated to leave the Church and make a big stink about it.

I agree that for the most part, members stay because of the social or cultural environment…for many that’s all they know. But I don’t think that it is so easy for people. Particularly over a long period of time and when more things are discovered about the church that may be difficult to rationalize or accept. Eventually (for many) the cognitive dissonance begins to take it’s toll. Ultimately, the comfortable feeling you speak of becomes not so comfortable. A person can actually feel quite miserable juggeling and pretending when they are afraid to walk in their truth.

I’m not saying it is easy to keep quiet or even pretend to believe when you don’t, what I meant to say is that this is sometimes relatively easy compared to some truly undesirable alternatives like being shunned and disrespected by family and friends or possibly even divorce. Beyond selfish thinking some non-believing members may not want to upset other members that are happy with the Church if they don’t have to. As far as I’m concerned other members can question the Church when and if they feel ready to take that step on their own.

Thomas Stuart Ferguson spent a lot of time and money doing archaeological digs looking for Book of Mormon evidence but eventually gave up on this idea after the Book of Abraham papyrus fragments the Church owns were translated in 1967. However, rather than leaving the Church or writing anti-Mormon propaganda, he mostly kept quiet about his loss of faith. Personally I think this kind of thing will only increase now that the internet is so popular.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Brian Johnston wrote:

Here’s a thought: Pornography might be better defined by what is happening inside a person than trying to define and categorize things outside of people (the actual content).

Something becomes pornographic when it is that inside our minds and hearts…it depends a lot on the cultural context…This was not abnormal for the culture. The Germans didn’t seemed bothered by it. It wasn’t pornographic to them.

GBSmith wrote:

I agree with Brian about defining pornography more by what goes on inside …For yourself it may be that “to the pure all things are pure” but it’s more likely in the current church climate to see impurity in places where it isn’t and by extension feel impure and in a general sense unworthy. I’ve seen people in that setting try to totally isolate themselves and their children from any depiction of the the human body clothed or unclothed as a way to avoid becoming stained. And it’s a fools errand if there ever was one.

Sure some people can see nudity without getting overly excited and Americans in particular make a bigger deal out of this than people in many other countries. However, one reason I am cynical about this idea is because many of these same countries that are more relaxed about public nudity than America still have a market for Playboy-style magazines. If this kind of gratuitous and unnecessary nudity is not pornographic then I guess I really don’t see what other legitimate purpose it serves. There is a painting by Manet with 2 fully dressed men sitting in the woods or a park with 2 naked women. Based on your individual and relative definition, this painting is not really porn to many men nowadays including me. However, I think it was certainly pornographic at the time and I still think it was a downright perverted painting to make and just because Manet is a respected artist this doesn’t really change this fact for me.

My main point is that porn is everywhere in small doses and this is really nothing new. In the end, how much worse are the nude scenes in “Girls Gone Wild” than those in mainstream movies like “The English Patient” or Titanic. Not at all in my opinion and the main difference is mostly quantity with only a few seconds of nudity in most mainstream movies. As a consequence I can buy R-rated movies in the bargain bin at Wal-Mart and my wife won’t think much about it but if I came home with “Girls Gone Wild” all hell would break loose. So I try to avoid obvious porn mostly because I don’t want to offend my wife if I don’t have to and I can certainly live without it. However, even if something really is porn to more than 90% of men how much harm does it really do in most cases? Personally, I think most of this alleged harm has been greatly exaggerated and is mostly imaginary and really only exists in people’s minds because they let it bother them.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Rix wrote:

…how much can you “disbelieve” and still be comfortable staying LDS? For example, can you believe Joseph may not have physically done all the things that are claimed in the JS story…and stay LDS?

Can you believe the BoM is fiction, and stay LDS? Or even the Bible?

Can you consider God to be either non-existent, or not a perfected human as most Mormons believe (ie, a guiding force, or energy…but not a “person”), and stay LDS?

…I would like to know how far outside the box YOU think one can be, and still stay LDS…

In my opinion, Church members can easily be completely outside the box as far as not believing at all in the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, the Bible, or even God and still be more comfortable about staying LDS than they are with any realistic alternatives. I don’t agree at all with many ex-Mormons who seem to think any members that don’t believe in everything the Church teaches should automatically feel obligated to leave the Church and make a big stink about it.

Consider the consequences, sometimes getting along with people is more important than being right (or assuming that you are right). Trying to burst people’s bubble is just as likely to make them mad at you rather than ever convincing them to agree with your opinion in many cases. Personally, I think many active Mormons are not even very familiar with the actual doctrines and history of the Church to begin with and for many it is mostly just a social club or cultural tradition where they simply feel comfortable around other Mormons and don’t really care that much about how exactly we got to this point.

[DevilsAdvocate]

SamBee wrote:

Well, the thing about alcohol is that it can be a relaxant as well as a depressant. In small quantities I have enjoyed it, especially if it is a certain type of beer, but not in large quantities. Some wine goes well with food too. I have given it all up now – or for however long I can keep this up for!

NB – not just the Seventh Day Adventists, the JWs have something similar too, which includes vegetarianism. They consider blood transplants a violation of their vegetarianism…

It sounds like the Jehovah’s Witnesses ban tobacco but allow alcohol (in moderation) mostly because there are so many positive or neutral references to wine in the Bible which they interpret literally. Of course, some TBMs answer to this is that this wasn’t really wine it must have been fresh unfermented grape juice. How convenient, they didn’t have any refrigeration but somehow they were able to manufacture and store lots of fresh grape juice whenever they wanted to.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Cadence wrote:

…I make a distinction between porn and art. Not all nudity is porn. Take a walk through the great art galleries, or tell me the great artists of the Renaissance were peddlers of porn.

I still don’t believe there is really that much of a clear-cut difference between art and pornography. As far as I’m concerned, many nude paintings that are now considered to be fine art by almost everyone were actually the equivalent of porn when they were originally made because they were basically intended to be erotic or glorify sexuality. The main difference between most nude art and Playboy in my opinion is simply that any blue-collar working man can afford to buy mass produced magazines or DVDs but the “art” is relatively rare and so people appreciate the relative beauty and work put into creating it even though it is still basically porn.

Don’t get me wrong I’m not trying to claim that all porn is the same only that almost all nudity and sex scenes in popular entertainment media are in fact pornography with very few exceptions like the disturbing Holocaust scenes in Shindler’s List. Does a few seconds of pure soft-core porn in a two hour movie mean we should classify the whole film as pornographic and boycott it? Not at all.

People like to think there is some highbrow distinction between art and porn mostly because there is a certain stigma around porn and it has negative connotations not only for Mormons but for many Americans in general. Shameless pornography is seen as sleazy as if anyone watching it should really be ashamed of themselves. It seems like not very many men want to openly admit that they actually like porn and they don’t hesitate to say how wrong or disgusting they think it is but somehow it continues to sell like crazy.

Sure there are some legitimate sex-addicts who spend an unhealthy amount of time obsessed with this kind of thing but to claim that all pornography is automatically a harmful addiction that everyone can and should be cured of is almost like saying that being a man (or teenage boy) is a disease. Some of this is just naturally hard-wired into people’s brains. Just because some people have been trained to avoid it out of principle doesn’t mean you can realistically expect this approach to work for everyone all the time.

[DevilsAdvocate]

SamBee wrote:

…Are all R rated/over 18 films with a sex scene in that category? Novels which contain the same? Are all films in this category out?

This is one of the things I’m trying to work out just now. It does seem a bit harsh, especially considering the content of the Song of Solomon, which is still in the LDS canon!!!

Yes R-rated sex scenes and nudity are almost always soft-core pornography but usually it adds up to less than a minute. In my favorite genres like action and horror these scenes often have very little to do with the actual story and were clearly added just for pornographic effect to help sell the movie. But what can you really do about it, only watch G or PG rated kiddie movies or TV shows? Here in Utah they actually had some stores that specialized in editing out all the bad stuff from popular R or PG-13 rated movies but I don’t know if they are still in business.

When it gets to the point where TBMs want to give people a guilt-trip about R-rated movies I start to wonder if I wouldn’t rather just go to the telestial or terrestrial kingdom instead of spending eternity with people are who are so hung-up about this kind of thing. I also think there is some major hypocrisy going on in the Church. I read somewhere that Utah had the highest per capita number of subscriptions to online adult websites of any states in the US which doesn’t surprise me at all.

I also get sick of hearing them talk about it in Conference so much. If you think it’s wrong or feel guilty about it then no one is forcing you to do it but it doesn’t mean you need to try to tell everyone else what to do in their own personal lives. My guess is that one reason they harp on this so much is because too many wives are freaking out about it. What is the real root cause of the problem here, pornography itself or prudish upbringing and attitudes that cause men to try to hide it and be deceptive about it and cause women to overreact when they find out about it? Whatever happened to the idea that boys will be boys? To give people a guilt-trip to the point that some have even committed suicide just doesn’t make any sense to me. Personally, I think romance novels are pornographic as well but I would never threaten to leave my wife over something so stupid.

[DevilsAdvocate]

cwald wrote:

…It is very very frustrating to me, because I think I understand the gospel pretty well, and I just have never been able to figure out how the WofW that I was taught fits into it. In fact, it doesn’t. In my opinion, it is absolutely BS – at least the way that I was taught the WofW growing up

Old-Timer wrote:

“Knock it off. Repent. That’s not the Gospel or pure Mormonism.”

Heber13 wrote:

No where have I seen where the church teaching it is a temple required standard and it also adds, “and shun those who don’t live it.” That last part is not taught but seems to be added by those who are putting a strict level on their own behavior..and then impose that outwardly to others, which is not what Christ taught, IMO.

Is the problem the way the church teaches it or the imperfect people living it? Or is it the coaches?

I don’t really believe that most Church leaders actually condone or openly encourage any of the self-righteous and intolerant attitudes that some members have about the WoW. This is probably just an unintended side-effect that has developed independently to some extent in the culture of the Church. However, even if we try to be as nice as possible about the WoW, I still think it’s a fundamentally flawed doctrine that looks more like an opinion gone wrong.

The problem is that making the WoW an essential requirement for baptism and the temple is basically the same as claiming that you absolutely need to avoid all of these things or else you will be condemned and oh by the way beer is now included in the list even though the original revelation specifically said that “mild drinks” made from barley were acceptable. This is a very bold statement to make especially when your 2 most revered hero figures Jesus and Joseph Smith both reportedly drank wine. If these rules are really all that important then it seems like they should have known better and should have set the proper example.

In the very least, it seems like Heber J. Grant should have delivered a new revelation at the end of D&C explaining why exactly all this is necessary. Maybe he didn’t feel like he needed to do this because this was a fairly popular opinion at the time to the point that even non-Mormon lawmakers were pushing the idea of nation-wide alcohol prohibition but to me that just makes it even more suspect to assume that this should still be applicable today.

Some apologists might claim that as long this prevents more people from smoking or becoming alcoholics then that is a good thing overall and there’s not that much of a downside. Maybe so, but personally I think it’s dishonest and manipulative and continuing to insist that we absolutely need to do all this just because the prophets said so or just because that’s what we have always done (in recent memory) is only going to undermine the Church’s credibility over the long run. As a suggestion it sort of made sense but as a set-in-stone commandment it is much harder to defend at this point. What most people would consider to be “sins” will typically have negative consequences or do real harm but this is not necessarily the case at all if you drink a cup of coffee or a few beers.

[DevilsAdvocate]

SamBee wrote:

I agree with the comments that such behavior can seem Pharasaical

(NIV version)

Quote:

16″Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. 17″Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man ‘unclean.’ 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20These are what make a man ‘unclean’; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him ‘unclean.’ “

It does seem strange that we’re supposed to have abolished kosher, but have instituted this.

Exactly, another good scripture along these lines is Matthew 15:11:

Quote:

“Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.”

I can’t count the number of times I have heard TBMs make judgmental comments about how people who drink or smoke smell bad or are worthless idiots in general because of these habits. Whatever happened to loving your neighbor? More like love your neighbors as long as they think and act almost exactly like you do. To me, this is what the current WoW policies are really all about more than anything else, basically promoting some level of cult-like separation between those on the inside from outsiders. As far as I’m concerned this is the attitude that really needs to go away but it’s hard to convince some active members of this as long as it’s a temple requirement and is still emphasized so much in the culture of the Church.

[DevilsAdvocate]

cwald wrote:

Old-Timer wrote:

I personally don’t dwell on the status change. It was a suggestion; now it’s a temple requirement. OK. Got it. 😈

I’m glad there are those who can just say that. It’s just doesn’t work for me. Actually, it chaps my hide. This “status change” which came during prohibition has evolved in “gospel doctrine” over the last 90 years and I believe it has become one of the single biggest stumbling blocks to the church. it certainly is one of mine. I wish President Grant and the current members now would have just listened and followed the suggested wisdom in the WofW, rather than basing an entire religion around it. I have no problem with those who choose to interpret it and add dos and don’t that just aren’t there for their personal worship – but why “force” everyone else to do the same. The rules we are taught about the WofW from the podium ARE NOT in the revelation – and by making it a TR question – it has become “doctrine”, and it does “force” us to follow these rules that are not in there if we want to be fully active members in the church. Perhaps this is not official doctrine coming from SLC — but it certainly from my experience it seems like I belong to The Church of Word of Wisdom rather than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

I agree with cwald, sometimes it does seem more like “The Church of the Word of Wisdom” rather than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints because this really is one of the most visible and questionable aspects of being a practicing Mormon nowadays. In all honesty, I’m not complaining about this because it’s really that much of a problem for me personally. My biggest stumbling blocks regarding the Church are easily tithing and serious doubts about Joseph Smith and other LDS prophets. Thanks to energy drinks, Mountain Dew, and Vivarin I would have no serious difficulties living the WoW for the rest of my life but I wouldn’t want to be caught dead drinking coffee at work simply because a few TBM co-workers that know I’m a RM might start to think I’m a son of perdition in that case.

I disagree with the current WoW policies mostly out of principle. It bothers me that Church leaders can just change these things on a whim to match their own opinions and then we are basically stuck with all these dogmatic rules until further notice. This kind of unquestioning obedience and authoritarianism is one reason the Church was able to pass off racial discrimination as an essential doctrine until 1978. In my opinion, the WoW is one of the single most cult-like and unchristian features of the current Church culture. Some of the self-righteous attitudes directly related to externally visible conformance to petty rules like this reminds me way too much of the Pharisees (Mark 2:16-17).

[DevilsAdvocate]

SamBee wrote:

I would just drink American beer brands, most of them have no alcohol content anyway. (Joke)

SamBee wrote:

The WoW is pretty clear on tobacco and alcohol, but then again, it’s not on tea or coffee (do they have to be hot?)

I’m not so sure the WoW is really all that clear about alcohol as far as trying to claim that any moderate amount of alcohol is automatically bad. Sure it specifically mentions wine and strong drink but I doubt that very many non-Mormons would interpret beer to be a “strong drink” regardless of whether it contains 3.2-8% alcohol. People think this is what the Word of Wisdom means simply because that’s what they have been told, not because that’s what it actually says. In fact the WoW specifically says “All grain is good … barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks.” If beer is not, in fact, the most common and popular “mild drink” made from barley then I don’t know what is.

And if wine is really so terrible then why did Joseph Smith and other early Church leaders drink it on the night he was killed? John Taylor had the following to say about it, “It has been reported by some that this was taken as a sacrament. It was no such thing; our spirits were generally dull and heavy, and it was sent for to revive us… I believe we all drank of the wine.” Basically, the WoW started out as a simple suggestion “not by commandment or constraint” and much later this was all changed to be a test of faith to really separate the active and obedient TBMs from all the Jack Mormons and non-Mormons who represent “the world.”

[DevilsAdvocate]

cwald wrote:

…this kind of thing apparently DOES happen in the church in different parts of the world. 😯 The comments on the post turned me off immediately, which is why Im bringing it over here to get some input. Most of the comments were “this is a sin…this is terrible” or “I think beer stinks so why would anyone want to drink it anyway?”

Quote:

I recently went to a sauna night at a church member’s house, and another member, very active, shows up with a can of beer. Really…It turns out it is 2.8% beer, and he says drinking this isn’t forbidden by the Word of Wisdom because a grown man cannot get drunk off of it. He claims lots of Mormons do it…

I’ve always thought that it would be hard for many grown men to get drunk off 3.2% Utah beer. It would be almost like a contest where people try to drink a gallon of milk as fast as possible just to see if they can. I guess Mormon lawmakers think they are waging a war against the evils of alcohol abuse with some of these measures. For example, they only allow this weak beer and no wine to be sold in convenience/grocery stores. They even banned flavored malt beverages because they were worried about teenage girls getting drunk.

In other words, ideally any alcoholic beverages should supposedly be watered-down and not taste like candy or else they should be inconvenient to buy and heavily taxed. Personally, I think these restrictions will only lead to worse alcohol abuse because they will just make people more likely to start stocking up on hard liquor instead. This kind of anti-sin legislation also results in Utah losing a lot of business to border towns like Evanston, Wyoming and Wendover, Nevada.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Rix wrote:

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

I know for a fact that spiritual experiences still happen because several people I know have had unusual experiences like this.

I think there are many possible explanations for “spiritual experiences,” one of them really a connection with the Divine (whatever that is)! Where I think many err is to label it, and/or give it meaning…when that may be completely wrong.

…The issue I have is that I have been a witness to spiritual “miracles” as well — many (most, in my experience) outside the LDS church. So in a nutshell, I believe they occur, but I don’t think they are unique to Mormons.

This is a good point. Hugh Nibley reportedly had a near-death experience that made a big impression on him and maybe this is one reason he was so persistent in defending the LDS Church against some of the toughest criticisms without getting discouraged. Of course, one problem with interpreting this kind of thing as some kind of positive confirmation that the Church’s claims are 100% true is the fact that many non-Mormons have had similar experiences without ever being told by those on the other side that their religious beliefs were completely wrong.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Heber13 wrote:

One question I often ponder:

What’s the difference between a spiritual experience, specifically when a person has a gift to see spirits or have visions, and a psychotic event including hallucinations?

Sure seeing spirits or visions one time only could just be a simple hallucination and if it appears as if the same spirits keep coming back it could easily be some form of neurosis or temporary insanity. But what about experiences where the spirits appear to know something that you wouldn’t really expect the person experiencing this to know? In cases like this I have a harder time just assuming that there must be some natural explanation.

Actually, at least 5 first-hand experiences I have heard that impressed me the most were just simple dreams but the weird thing was that they accurately predicted future events in some very unlikely ways so they would have to be an extremely lucky coincidence to just happen by chance when they did.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Featherina wrote:

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

…it seems like the current version of the LDS Church has evolved to be more like the most conservative old-school orthodox churches that are more concerned with adherence to tradition and the written word than the experience of individual members.

…what happened to all these spiritual experiences? Should we expect experiences like this now, or not?

Think about the religious movement at the time. Everyone was thinking about religion. Now, not so much. Still, I think people have spiritual experiences now, as they did then, but it may not be publicized.

…What you mentioned was similar to what I just read, “Faith is primarily a matter of belonging, & LDS conversion typically comes in a social context rather than individually.” (- Mormon America)…

I know for a fact that spiritual experiences still happen because several people I know have had unusual experiences like this. The best that skeptics can say is that they think these are all a misinterpretation of some natural process or outright lies but personally I don’t believe in the skeptics’ explanations in many cases. However, these experiences seem to be very rare in the Church nowadays compared with the way it was before and I don’t know of any recent cases of several different members all having experiences like this at the same time.

I realize that these early Church members were probably more receptive to these kinds of experiences than the average member nowadays. However, even now many Pentecostal sects still have meetings that sound very much like these early LDS meetings. Is this legitimate spiritual influence or pure craziness? On my mission in Brazil these Pentecostal churches were very popular and I honestly thought it was demonic at the time but now I don’t know what to think about it. Certainly most Pentecostals I met seemed very sincere and faithful and we rarely baptized any of them, mostly just lapsed Catholics.

[Author]

Posts