Usually I only have a few close friends, but sometimes look around FB wondering if I want to add any old friends, and to find out what they are doing, and compare our lives to see if I am still an alien. I found a young man who was a boy on our school bus route, whose parents were on my paper route, who is now a gay activist. Who knew? In HS one student that everyone knew of was out, but I would never have known about him, because he was in grade school. He seems to have turned out well, even though he grew up with some ridicule or bullying for other reasons. His parents are very nice people, but what if he had been LD$? I thought, what if the little boy I knew had heard this talk?

This sentence really upset me:

“For those who truly desire it, there is a way back. Repentance is like unto a detergent. Even ground-in stains of sin will come out.”

Previous to this quote he told the story of voting on the gender of a kitten, and between the two there were no overt references to pornography, but directly afterwards he did mention it. After all the inferences, and allusions in this talk, I believe this quote can be taken both ways, but most definitely as a reference to homosexuality. Especially because it follows the kitten story, and statements about “voting to change laws that would legalize immorality” , and the kitten story follows the “inborn tendencies” statement. In his mind, gawd made everyone perfect, and anything contrary is sin, and our choice, like voting on our gender - it will not change it. The story can also work for any black and white thinking analogy, but who can ignore the fact that the story is about gender? Gender and orientation are the same to him, while to me it seems there is an entire spectrum for orientation in society.

As it applies to pornography, I understand the strong, vivid metaphor, but for a child or teenager watching conference, who already may feel ostracized, criticized, inferior, imperfect, or sinful for being fundamentally who they are, this is a vile statement. I cannot imagine these children feeling that what they feel is part of them, and who they are, is seen as a ground in stain that must be purged. To me this is powerful language that could haunt someone forever.

I can only mildly relate, because LD$ Inc. did not accept me for who I am. I received a lot of bullying in my life, because I have a rare personality type, and health issues, so I am different in a culture that wants conformity. TSCC made me feel my introversion was not accepted, did not appreciate my analysis, insight or intellect, and only appreciated one role for women as baby factories, made discriminatory statements, and denied health issues that I have had for decades - the struggle with them defines every day of my life, has ruined my education, etc., and to have them minimize or outright deny it exists, even with doctor’s letters, is extremely cruel, and hurtful to me. These things are not my choice; they are who I am. I think many members have felt a very small part of what gay, black, and female members have felt, and could empathize if they really thought about it. Former members can better understand.

I only know what it is like to have them crush my individuality, deny my feelings or right to them, and rewrite the history of my painful life to suit themselves.

This is as far as I can relate, but I am really upset for everyone, but especially for the children.

Whenever they say the gospel is like a stone rolling forth, I say, sure, and they are crushing people along the way. TSCC is a destructive force.

This part too.

"In our day the dreadful influence of pornography is like unto a plague sweeping across the world, infecting one here and one there, relentlessly trying to invade every home, most frequently through the husband and father."

Now kids are going to be looking at Dad wondering if he really is a pervert.

That kind of statement might be acceptable in a PH meeting with all guys, but in front of the kids? No!

is a different topic, and not a choice, in my opinion.

The church leaders really have a case of porn paranoia these days. When I grew up in the church in the early 80's porn never was mentioned. It was all about going too far and heavy petting.

I guess porn is a good scape goat to blame for the priesthood's adultery which has existed in the church since Joseph Smith and another thing to guilt trip the membership about since free porn is just a simple Google search away and they damn well know all but the most puritan Mormon male is looking at it. I wonder how many GA look at porn?

Again: If you want to voice your issues with pornography, and TSCC then this post is NOT the place to do it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2010 02:25AM by atheist&happy:-).

Ugh! It really bothers me that people are so brainless.

The "like unto" thing was extra stupid. "The Lord uses this phrase, 'like unto,' blah blah blah." You'd have to try to make that sound more pompous and idiotic.

"Porn paranoia," indeed!

My husband is a mental health counselor - inactive from church but still believing.

He has been hounded half to death by people from the church BEGGING him to work with what sounds like about 75% of the ward who are said to be suffering from porn addiction!

He won't agree to work with them, for which I am grateful.

But one thing keeps bugging me: why does this have to be such a problem? OK, so people see internet porn and - oh my! - maybe even commit the M offense. But is it really anybody's business??? If bishops weren't so intrusive, asking point-blank about it, would anybody even know? I mean, do you make a habit of going around discussing things like this in real life?

This is pretty personal stuff. Why can't it stay "in the closet," as it were??

People have other thoughts. Can't they add to your thread--you know, expand on it and enrich it?

I didn't express concern for children. Are you gonna chastise me, too? Or is there some history I don't know about?

towards pro-pornography, minimizing it or mentioning nudists off the topic of the post, because they know my views.

Hijacking is not expanding and enriching.

You made a benign comment on a post, and the first comment was off some, but part of a legitimate conversation. If I was going to chastise you I would have.