Ensign Article--Yet ANOTHER Anti-Male Pornography Push

[freedomforall]

Fiannan, are you trying to encourage LDS men and women that pornography use is acceptable and normal? Because you know full well that the LDS church does not teach this. By suggesting this, you are promoting LDS members to sin. You are trying to excuse them and tell them that they don't need to listen to the LDS church, which teaches this is wrong, and instead, listen to the world that tells them they can look at it every other week, and use it to get 'ready' for a date with their husband, or whatever. But, you know full well that this is absolutely unacceptable for a believing LDS person to follow these worldly beliefs and practices.

Fiannan, the LDS church defines purposeful pornography viewing as WRONG--what we call transgression and even sin. The church makes no allowances for it being a simply stress reducer, or a way to spice up a boring sex life. Like all sin/transgression it needs to be overcome and repented of and then avoided.

I do not understand why you come on these Pornography threads and use your knowledge and rhetorical skills to try to influence people to take pleasure in sin.

It's called a fixation. Anything sexual is discussed every which way in an effort to excuse sin, even by discussing it at all. And you are correct, statistics and so called experts don't have a clue as to what God expects. Catering to the basic carnal tendencies of man is wrong.
Sure, we sin every day in some way or another, but we as LDS's know that we must keep repenting and trying harder to come to abhor sin no matter the type of sin it is. And we cannot hang on to our favorite sins either.
Nephi was a great example of a man who was upset because he sinned occasionally.

2 Nephi
17 ...O wretched man that I am! Yea, my heart sorroweth because of my flesh; my soul grieveth because of mine iniquities.
18 I am encompassed about, because of the temptations and the sins which do so easily beset me.
19 And when I desire to rejoice, my heart groaneth because of my sins; nevertheless, I know in whom I have trusted.

27 And why should I yield to sin, because of my flesh? Yea, why should I give way to temptations, that the evil one have place in my heart to destroy my peace and afflict my soul? Why am I angry because of mine enemy?

[freedomforall]

Does this really matter, Brianj? Does it change anything about the nature of the evil we are discussing? If 98% of all LDS women looked at pornography, would that mean it was okay because practically everyone was doing it? If 70% of LDS women looked at it and only 30% of LDS men looked at it, would that mean it was okay? Of course not, and that's why the statistics don't matter and I could care less about them.

Truthfully, it doesn't matter because pornography viewing has been roundly condemned by our Prophets. That's what matters.

This whole thread started because someone took offense, claiming that an Ensign article was 'anti-male' because it spoke mostly about Husbands being the pornography viewer. Do you think that person who was offended would also be offended at Jesus because he also assumed that men were more likely to have this problem?

Jesus Christ warned in Matt 5:28: ..."But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." and again in D&C 63:16: "And verily I say unto you, as I have said before, he that looketh on a woman to lust after her, or if any shall commit adultery in their hearts They shall not have the spirit, but shall deny the faith and shall fear."


Jesus called out men and warned them, just as the Ensign article was written from the perspective that a man is more likely to have this problem. So, does that mean that Jesus Christ was 'anti-male'? I can't help but believe that anyone who took offense at that Ensign article, or claimed it was damaging or harmful, would also be offended by what our Savior said.

That's how utterly ridiculous this was from an LDS point of view.

Here are some worthwhile statistics:

3 Nephi 27:33
33 And it came to pass that when Jesus had ended these sayings he said unto his disciples: Enter ye in at the strait gate; for strait is the gate, and narrow is the way that leads to life, and few there be that find it; but wide is the gate, and broad the way which leads to death, and many there be that travel therein, until the night cometh, wherein no man can work.

Doctrine and Covenants 1:31
31 For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance;

[brianj]

Does this really matter, Brianj? Does it change anything about the nature of the evil we are discussing? If 98% of all LDS women looked at pornography, would that mean it was okay because practically everyone was doing it? If 70% of LDS women looked at it and only 30% of LDS men looked at it, would that mean it was okay? Of course not, and that's why the statistics don't matter and I could care less about them.

Truthfully, it doesn't matter because pornography viewing has been roundly condemned by our Prophets. That's what matters.

I believe it does matter. If, as has been asserted, as many young women are looking at porn as young men and the message from church leaders only focuses on porn usage by males, do you think it's possible that young women will excuse themselves because nobody is telling *them* that they shouldn't be looking at porn?

This whole thread started because someone took offense, claiming that an Ensign article was 'anti-male' because it spoke mostly about Husbands being the pornography viewer. Do you think that person who was offended would also be offended at Jesus because he also assumed that men were more likely to have this problem?

Jesus Christ warned in Matt 5:28: ..."But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." and again in D&C 63:16: "And verily I say unto you, as I have said before, he that looketh on a woman to lust after her, or if any shall commit adultery in their hearts They shall not have the spirit, but shall deny the faith and shall fear."


Jesus called out men and warned them, just as the Ensign article was written from the perspective that a man is more likely to have this problem. So, does that mean that Jesus Christ was 'anti-male'? I can't help but believe that anyone who took offense at that Ensign article, or claimed it was damaging or harmful, would also be offended by what our Savior said.

That's how utterly ridiculous this was from an LDS point of view.

This is ridiculous. By that reasoning women are mostly incapable of sin because the Savior almost exclusively used men in his parables. Do you think that you have no rights? The Declaration of Independence and Constitution reference the rights of men but there isn't a single reference to women in either of those documents.
Why don't we agree that before the late 20th century it was customary to say men instead of people. If we can agree on this point, hopefully we can agree that at this point in time people call such language usage sexist and insist on gender neutral terminology to reference both men and women. The anonymous author of the Ensign article uses the word spouse in the title and subtitle, but the entire article is about women whose husbands use porn. So what's the lesson? You seem convinced the lesson is that a great many men in the church, along with boys, use porn but women don't. Or is the lesson that when a wife uses porn it doesn't have any negative impact on her husband or children? Or maybe porn consumption is only a sin for male church members?

[freedomforall]

Does this really matter, Brianj? Does it change anything about the nature of the evil we are discussing? If 98% of all LDS women looked at pornography, would that mean it was okay because practically everyone was doing it? If 70% of LDS women looked at it and only 30% of LDS men looked at it, would that mean it was okay? Of course not, and that's why the statistics don't matter and I could care less about them.

Truthfully, it doesn't matter because pornography viewing has been roundly condemned by our Prophets. That's what matters.

I believe it does matter. If, as has been asserted, as many young women are looking at porn as young men and the message from church leaders only focuses on porn usage by males, do you think it's possible that young women will excuse themselves because nobody is telling *them* that they shouldn't be looking at porn?

This whole thread started because someone took offense, claiming that an Ensign article was 'anti-male' because it spoke mostly about Husbands being the pornography viewer. Do you think that person who was offended would also be offended at Jesus because he also assumed that men were more likely to have this problem?

Jesus Christ warned in Matt 5:28: ..."But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." and again in D&C 63:16: "And verily I say unto you, as I have said before, he that looketh on a woman to lust after her, or if any shall commit adultery in their hearts They shall not have the spirit, but shall deny the faith and shall fear."


Jesus called out men and warned them, just as the Ensign article was written from the perspective that a man is more likely to have this problem. So, does that mean that Jesus Christ was 'anti-male'? I can't help but believe that anyone who took offense at that Ensign article, or claimed it was damaging or harmful, would also be offended by what our Savior said.

That's how utterly ridiculous this was from an LDS point of view.

This is ridiculous. By that reasoning women are mostly incapable of sin because the Savior almost exclusively used men in his parables. Do you think that you have no rights? The Declaration of Independence and Constitution reference the rights of men but there isn't a single reference to women in either of those documents.
Why don't we agree that before the late 20th century it was customary to say men instead of people. If we can agree on this point, hopefully we can agree that at this point in time people call such language usage sexist and insist on gender neutral terminology to reference both men and women. The anonymous author of the Ensign article uses the word spouse in the title and subtitle, but the entire article is about women whose husbands use porn. So what's the lesson? You seem convinced the lesson is that a great many men in the church, along with boys, use porn but women don't. Or is the lesson that when a wife uses porn it doesn't have any negative impact on her husband or children? Or maybe porn consumption is only a sin for male church members?

What does God say about uncleanness and impure thoughts?

Plus, since we are to liken scriptures to us today, here is something from the Book of Mormon:

35 Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds.

Where much is given, much is required, meaning the men in the church hold the priesthood of God and should be holding themselves to higher standards as indicated in the above verse.

[Fiannan]

Where much is given, much is required, meaning the men in the church hold the priesthood of God and should be holding themselves to higher standards as indicated in the above verse.

So less is required of women? Maybe then Sacrament should be split into male and female versions. Women can discuss something that could be called "girl stuff" and men can deal with scriptural study and analysis?

[Fiannan]

A recent psychological study concluded that moral outrage is sometimes a symptom of personal guilt rather than genuine empathy for the situation of others.

A really good read:

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/03/0 ... -failings/

[LatterDayLizard]

The pornography that draws women is, by-in-large, the printed word, i.e. romance novels and fan-fiction. By comparison, what men are primarily drawn towards is visual and involves the physical exploitation of another person. The individuals being exploited by the visual medium are women and children.

Men are primarily responsible for protecting women and children. Partaking of visual pornography is a betrayal and violation of that trust. It is a relinquishment of their God-given power of strength and protection and places them in the roll of Satan, the master abuser. It can eventually lead a man from indirectly exploiting women and children via media to sexually exploiting those who they come in contact with, destroying individuals, families, and societies.

Women are primarily responsible for nurture. That role is compromised by an addiction to smutty romance. She is demeaning herself and relinquishing her feminine power of nurturing the divine nature in others, that power which would promote a person's value beyond the physical and push back against the effects of pornography. She is in a sense participating in her own and in others' exploitation by removing herself from the forces working against pornography and becoming a victim herself in the process.

There are of course exceptions. Men are being drawn in deeper than ever, and so are women. But it is the men of the church engaging in pornography who imho are causing the greater harm. Women who participate and do not wield their righteous influence are complicit as well, but it is the men who were given the power and who shoulder the greater responsibility as protectors of the family.

[Fiannan]

The pornography that draws women is, by-in-large, the printed word, i.e. romance novels and fan-fiction. By comparison, what men are primarily drawn towards is visual and involves the physical exploitation of another person. The individuals being exploited by the visual medium are women and children.

30 years ago yes, not anymore.

And what is your definition of exploitation? I once spoke to an LDS gal who had been a stripper. She felt it was wrong, but she said she really missed the fun aspects of the life she had led. Did anyone force her to take such a job? No. Had she been abused as a child? She said she had not been. And taken further, most women involved in pornography today, especially the stuff most popular with couples and women, are generally middle class in background and not abused. And no, they are not forced into it.

As for children, maybe we should start a thread on human trafficking. While in a very small percentage of cases it is involved in pornography it is by and large a private thing involving many of the very elite of pretty much every nation.

Men are primarily responsible for protecting women and children. Partaking of visual pornography is a betrayal and violation of that trust. It is a relinquishment of their God-given power of strength and protection and places them in the roll of Satan, the master abuser. It can eventually lead a man from indirectly exploiting women and children via media to sexually exploiting those who they come in contact with, destroying individuals, families, and societies.

You make an excellent point here, but I am not sure you do so intentionally. I do not believe it is a violation of trust between a husband and wife, especially if the wife is fully aware of it and even approves of it. However, in a community sense, the whole "Am I my brother's keeper?" aspect of the issue often is ignored. Those women are young American women (the USA produces most of the porn in this world) who are, I believe, drawn into porn to fulfill narcissistic and consumeristic aspirations pushed by the society today. I doubt most will, once they leave the industry, find it easy to go back into the normal world, get married and have families. Sure, many do, but the taste of the glamour and attention (and money) involved in this field works its toll on them. Yet note that this is an aspect of the porn issue that is generally ignored by religious conservatives. Yes, porn is capitalism divorced from morality.

However, there is no evidence that porn leads men to sexually exploit others if, by that, you mean committing sex crimes.

Women are primarily responsible for nurture. That role is compromised by an addiction to smutty romance.

Add to that daytime TV, especially talk shows. Better a woman be looking at nasty novels (usually older women there) or naughty movies as the messages conveyed on network TV are probably worse than anything in the former categories. By the way, do any of the readers here have daughters on Tumblr? You ought to get an account and check out what quite a few young women post there. Many share these things called "gifs" and they are often not all that wholesome. True, most do not engage in this but it is hard to miss the ones who do if you spend any time there.

[freedomforall]

The pornography that draws women is, by-in-large, the printed word, i.e. romance novels and fan-fiction. By comparison, what men are primarily drawn towards is visual and involves the physical exploitation of another person. The individuals being exploited by the visual medium are women and children.

30 years ago yes, not anymore.

And what is your definition of exploitation? I once spoke to an LDS gal who had been a stripper. She felt it was wrong, but she said she really missed the fun aspects of the life she had led. Did anyone force her to take such a job? No. Had she been abused as a child? She said she had not been. And taken further, most women involved in pornography today, especially the stuff most popular with couples and women, are generally middle class in background and not abused. And no, they are not forced into it.

As for children, maybe we should start a thread on human trafficking. While in a very small percentage of cases it is involved in pornography it is by and large a private thing involving many of the very elite of pretty much every nation.

Men are primarily responsible for protecting women and children. Partaking of visual pornography is a betrayal and violation of that trust. It is a relinquishment of their God-given power of strength and protection and places them in the roll of Satan, the master abuser. It can eventually lead a man from indirectly exploiting women and children via media to sexually exploiting those who they come in contact with, destroying individuals, families, and societies.

You make an excellent point here, but I am not sure you do so intentionally. I do not believe it is a violation of trust between a husband and wife, especially if the wife is fully aware of it and even approves of it. However, in a community sense, the whole "Am I my brother's keeper?" aspect of the issue often is ignored. Those women are young American women (the USA produces most of the porn in this world) who are, I believe, drawn into porn to fulfill narcissistic and consumeristic aspirations pushed by the society today. I doubt most will, once they leave the industry, find it easy to go back into the normal world, get married and have families. Sure, many do, but the taste of the glamour and attention (and money) involved in this field works its toll on them. Yet note that this is an aspect of the porn issue that is generally ignored by religious conservatives. Yes, porn is capitalism divorced from morality.

However, there is no evidence that porn leads men to sexually exploit others if, by that, you mean committing sex crimes.

Women are primarily responsible for nurture. That role is compromised by an addiction to smutty romance.

Add to that daytime TV, especially talk shows. Better a woman be looking at nasty novels (usually older women there) or naughty movies as the messages conveyed on network TV are probably worse than anything in the former categories. By the way, do any of the readers here have daughters on Tumblr? You ought to get an account and check out what quite a few young women post there. Many share these things called "gifs" and they are often not all that wholesome. True, most do not engage in this but it is hard to miss the ones who do if you spend any time there.

Much of this discussion is not wholesome either. It's like a thief looking in a mirror and calling the person staring back a thief.

[Fiannan]

Much of this discussion is not wholesome either. It's like a thief looking in a mirror and calling the person staring back a thief.

Are you referencing the article from Breitbart that I posted?

[LatterDayLizard]

The pornography that draws women is, by-in-large, the printed word, i.e. romance novels and fan-fiction. By comparison, what men are primarily drawn towards is visual and involves the physical exploitation of another person. The individuals being exploited by the visual medium are women and children.

30 years ago yes, not anymore.

I agree, however from my own observations I would say there is a dramatic acceleration happening among the current rising generation. Pornography is being discussed more openly and urgently now than ever before with the youth, girls as well as boys, in the church. I didn't have the same emphasis on fighting pornography growing up that I see my teen daughter receiving in spades from her leaders today. I also didn't have the sheer overwhelming exposure growing up that my teens have to pornography now.

And what is your definition of exploitation?

I define it as being in a situation where your value is based solely on your physical body, either by choice or through coersion. A woman who chooses to be a prostitute, for example, is allowing herself to be exploited. Child abuse on the other hand is exploitation that is forced on the victim.

I once spoke to an LDS gal who had been a stripper. She felt it was wrong, but she said she really missed the fun aspects of the life she had led. Did anyone force her to take such a job? No. Had she been abused as a child? She said she had not been. And taken further, most women involved in pornography today, especially the stuff most popular with couples and women, are generally middle class in background and not abused. And no, they are not forced into it.

They are all still being exploited. Women today have been deceived into thinking sexual promiscuity gives them power when all it does is demean. The man who seeks out these women is also deceived, but he is in the position of power in this case. He is using her, taking advantage of her for selfish pleasures, and is not doing his duty to protect and defend her as he ought.

The sad, scary reality that couples are going in on these things together shows that either the woman is allowing herself to be coerced by her husband (which I have seen happen more than a few times) and/or enough women really have become that crass. Either way, it shows we are living in modern day Sodom.


As for children, maybe we should start a thread on human trafficking. While in a very small percentage of cases it is involved in pornography it is by and large a private thing involving many of the very elite of pretty much every nation.


Mmmno, it's not so small a percentage.

Child porn is free and easily accessible online. Access to the more hard core pics will cost you. Children wouldn't be exploited this way if there wasn't an audience willing to pay for it. Of course the richer and baser you are, the more likely you are to join the ranks of child traffickers. Everyday people who get drawn into this variety of porn addiction and cannot pay premium have to settle for local kids/family members.

Not being flippant here, it's the world we live in.

Men are primarily responsible for protecting women and children. Partaking of visual pornography is a betrayal and violation of that trust. It is a relinquishment of their God-given power of strength and protection and places them in the roll of Satan, the master abuser. It can eventually lead a man from indirectly exploiting women and children via media to sexually exploiting those who they come in contact with, destroying individuals, families, and societies.

You make an excellent point here, but I am not sure you do so intentionally. I do not believe it is a violation of trust between a husband and wife, especially if the wife is fully aware of it and even approves of it.
However, in a community sense, the whole "Am I my brother's keeper?" aspect of the issue often is ignored. Those women are young American women (the USA produces most of the porn in this world) who are, I believe, drawn into porn to fulfill narcissistic and consumeristic aspirations pushed by the society today. I doubt most will, once they leave the industry, find it easy to go back into the normal world, get married and have families. Sure, many do, but the taste of the glamour and attention (and money) involved in this field works its toll on them. Yet note that this is an aspect of the porn issue that is generally ignored by religious conservatives. Yes, porn is capitalism divorced from morality.


That's an interesting point. This mentality you describe hearkens back to what I said about women being deceived by a false sense of power.

However, there is no evidence that porn leads men to sexually exploit others if, by that, you mean committing sex crimes.

I don't believe that is true. I believe there is evidence to back me up on that. I can't prove it as I don't have time to look up anything to support myself, but maybe someone else can. I can say that I've seen it for myself and it's a terrible thing to witness.

Women are primarily responsible for nurture. That role is compromised by an addiction to smutty romance.

Add to that daytime TV, especially talk shows.

Absolutely.

Better a woman be looking at nasty novels (usually older women there) or naughty movies as the messages conveyed on network TV are probably worse than anything in the former categories. By the way, do any of the readers here have daughters on Tumblr? You ought to get an account and check out what quite a few young women post there. Many share these things called "gifs" and they are often not all that wholesome. True, most do not engage in this but it is hard to miss the ones who do if you spend any time there.

It's all over Tumblr. It's everywhere, really. I pray every day for help to keep my family safe.

[JohnnyL]

I am willing to give both genders the benefit of the doubt. I do not think men or women are consciously trying to hurt, nag, and abuse each other. I'll even go so far as to say most people get married because they deem themselves in love with their partner.

Most women start out loving and anxious to meet their man's needs and most men start off solicitous and eager to meet their wife's needs. Maybe though, we have confused "being in love" as having the needs of our egos met - rather than being given the opportunity to love and nurture another soul. As parent it's easier to see and feel intrinsically what genuine love does in a crisis. It doesn't lash out, it doesn't isolate, instead it suffers long and is kind. It is not puffed up and seeks not its own.

Instead we need to find that inner part our us that know who we are, and Then we are free to live like we are loved and valued.

I Mean if we can manage to believe what God is trying to tell us, it's a pretty cool story - the most perfect, amazing, entity In the universe made us, he thinks we're awesome and he is begging to connect to us. That connection to him will free us to love one another the same way he loves us.

We are all going to hurt each other (very few people start off with intent to hurt or nag, but it still happens) and once you have been hurt or nagged you have a choice to make - Bitterness or forgiveness?

One leads to peace the other to never ending dissatisfaction.

I think pornography use is breaking the Law of Chastity if you are having sexual relations with that picture. Are you behaving in a way that intentionally stimulates your sexual arousal. And yes, women are guilty of the same thing and we should have counsel for the women about being aroused by what they are watching or reading.

Yes! Do not take a loved one's addiction personally. Instead, seek to connect with them - you can argue all day about who hurts who more - or you can learn how to offer TRUE LOVE because He first loved you with a true love.

Remember, just as you would not be offended if a heroine addict chose heroine over your home cooked soup don't fall into the trap of believing you are not _________ enough or your soup isn't tasty. Remember, live like you are loved (because He first loved you) and than you are free to offer true love to another soul and you will not fall into the trap of just swapping ego gratifications with your spouse.

And just for the record, you can't ever pacify another person's needy ego no matter what you do, no matter how perfect or imperfect you are. :ymhug: The ego never rests, nothing is good enough for it. See it for what it is.

Unbridled passion for ANYTHING kills love. I think porn is so damaging because wives/husbands DO take this personally. He's lonely and feeling guilty, and she feels ugly and unwanted (or the other way around) and BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! That ego centered Love dies and you get to decide what's left.

Bridle all your passions that you might be filled with love.

+1

[JohnnyL]

Does this really matter, Brianj? Does it change anything about the nature of the evil we are discussing? If 98% of all LDS women looked at pornography, would that mean it was okay because practically everyone was doing it? If 70% of LDS women looked at it and only 30% of LDS men looked at it, would that mean it was okay? Of course not, and that's why the statistics don't matter and I could care less about them.

Truthfully, it doesn't matter because pornography viewing has been roundly condemned by our Prophets. That's what matters.

I believe it does matter. If, as has been asserted, as many young women are looking at porn as young men and the message from church leaders only focuses on porn usage by males, do you think it's possible that young women will excuse themselves because nobody is telling *them* that they shouldn't be looking at porn?

This whole thread started because someone took offense, claiming that an Ensign article was 'anti-male' because it spoke mostly about Husbands being the pornography viewer. Do you think that person who was offended would also be offended at Jesus because he also assumed that men were more likely to have this problem?

Jesus Christ warned in Matt 5:28: ..."But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." and again in D&C 63:16: "And verily I say unto you, as I have said before, he that looketh on a woman to lust after her, or if any shall commit adultery in their hearts They shall not have the spirit, but shall deny the faith and shall fear."

Jesus called out men and warned them, just as the Ensign article was written from the perspective that a man is more likely to have this problem. So, does that mean that Jesus Christ was 'anti-male'? I can't help but believe that anyone who took offense at that Ensign article, or claimed it was damaging or harmful, would also be offended by what our Savior said.

That's how utterly ridiculous this was from an LDS point of view.

This is ridiculous. By that reasoning women are mostly incapable of sin because the Savior almost exclusively used men in his parables. Do you think that you have no rights? The Declaration of Independence and Constitution reference the rights of men but there isn't a single reference to women in either of those documents.
Why don't we agree that before the late 20th century it was customary to say men instead of people. If we can agree on this point, hopefully we can agree that at this point in time people call such language usage sexist and insist on gender neutral terminology to reference both men and women. The anonymous author of the Ensign article uses the word spouse in the title and subtitle, but the entire article is about women whose husbands use porn. So what's the lesson? You seem convinced the lesson is that a great many men in the church, along with boys, use porn but women don't. Or is the lesson that when a wife uses porn it doesn't have any negative impact on her husband or children? Or maybe porn consumption is only a sin for male church members?

Yup. And all of what you've just said is the main thrust of all this for me and my dissatisfaction and frustration with church leaders and church culture, and with this Ensign article.

And djinwa's new thread continues it in a more "principle" direction.

[JohnnyL]

Where much is given, much is required, meaning the men in the church hold the priesthood of God and should be holding themselves to higher standards as indicated in the above verse.

So less is required of women? Maybe then Sacrament should be split into male and female versions. Women can discuss something that could be called "girl stuff" and men can deal with scriptural study and analysis?

Yeah, what happened to "they're so righteous they didn't need the priesthood"? What happened to "the crowning point of the creation?"

Reminds me of my sisters--"women first" and they'd always take the best chores, the biggest pieces, etc.--until spanking time, when they really felt uncomfortable with "women first".

[JohnnyL]

Why is it that women get a pass because of their natures or hormones? When will men get to blame their porn viewing on a testosterone problem?
True, they should get as much a pass because of that, as men. I've been asking that second question for a while, too.

Why is it cheating to look at another woman's body, but not equally cheating to broadcast the intimate details of your marriage to the world?
Agree. I think the second could be more harmful and hurtful than the first.

Hypocrisy. The only thing I can think of is that women need power over their man. They get it by using the church, much like many women use the cops to come arrest the man automatically, despite statistics that show men are abused as much as women.
So forget all the in-depth shrink psychobabble analysis - the church is simply a means of power and control. If a woman can have complete control over her man's sexuality, she can demand and get whatever she wants using sex as currency. And she won't have to give out much if she is his only outlet for sex.
Likewise, she can use the church to shame him into compliance. Tell all the members about his "problem". Threaten excommunication and divorce. Force counseling. Tell him to "man up" or "grow a pair".
And then we give him the priesthood and tell him he is in control! Hahahahahahaha!!!
It's hard to say it, but it seems that way.

I'm reminded of this story I read last year:
https://www.mormonwomen.com/interview/w ... hits-home/
Her reaction is completely out of control. Most of the world would laugh at her. You only react this way if you are trained so. Becoming nauseous, first thoughts are of divorce, spreading intimate details to everyone. Apparently this is considered normal behavior in the church.

He then told me we needed to talk. I knew it must be more serious, but I had no idea of the gravity of what was going to come out his mouth. His first words were, “My problems all started with pornography.”

My stomach went into an upheaval. I felt like I needed to run to the bathroom and throw up, but I couldn’t really move. I felt like I was having an out of body experience.
----------
If you would have asked me before this actually happened, I would have said I would leave my marriage. I’d be crazy not to. But in the moment he told me, I was numb. I didn’t know what I was supposed to do. My thoughts went straight to the Lord-“what am I supposed to do?”-over and over again I asked this. I thought I should probably leave, but I didn’t really feel like leaving. I tried going to a friend’s house, but the Spirit told me I needed to go home.
---------
The night he told me about his addiction, I called my mom. We ended up telling his family, and eventually, we knew we’d have to tell close family and friends. However, I prayed hard about who I was going to tell because I needed people who could support us, not judge us and who could handle the burden of knowing. There is a lot pain in knowing someone you love is struggling with something so hard.

Sounds like it was all her pain that she thought about...

[freedomforall]

https://www.lds.org/topics/pornography/ ... y?lang=eng

Healing Concepts for Women Impacted by Pornography

By Jill C. Manning, PhD, Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist

CNN recently interviewed the infamous Hugh Hefner about his life, his corporate empire, and Steven Watt's new book, Mr. Playboy: Hugh Hefner and the American Dream. In the interview, Hefner, who is now 82 years of age, mentioned he had started dating two 19-year-old twins named Karissa and Kristina Shannon. When I saw a corresponding photograph of Hugh Hefner dressed in a burgundy bathrobe sitting alongside these two teenage girls, I was struck by how creepy and pathetic the whole thing is. Needless to say, the Baltimore Sun's description of Hefner as "the sexualized Peter Pan who refused to grow up" resonated with many of my own reactions.

For me, the photograph symbolized how bizarre the pornography industry and its growing acceptance in our culture are, not to mention how sexually toxic and perverse our social climate has become.

As I contemplated this photograph and scenario further, I couldn't help but reflect on the many women I have met who have been negatively impacted by pornography. As a marriage and family therapist who works with women directly impacted by pornography, I am continually struck by the profound damage it causes.

Although downplayed and dismissed by many, pornography consumption by a spouse is devastating and should not be underestimated in terms of the far-reaching consequences it has on trust, intimacy, family life, children, finances, the marital friendship, and, in a growing number of cases, the existence of the marriage itself. Aside from abuse, I know of no other marital issue that affects the very soul of women more than pornography consumption by a spouse.

Too often, the discovery or disclosure of a pornography problem in marriage causes women to slip into unhealthy comparisons; to engage in inappropriate behavior themselves; or to spiral downward into depression, self-doubt, and in some cases, even suicidal thinking. These responses, although unhelpful, are understandable when the magnitude of damage, betrayal, and hurt are understood. Pornography, by nature and name, diminishes virtue, love, creativity, healthy sexuality, personal and relational growth, and honesty. Consequently, responding to pornography problems in marriage requires that we be exceptionally honest and clear about what pornography is, what it is not, how it has impacted our relationship and self-concept, and what is the best way to respond.

The following three concepts, among many others, have been helpful for women to incorporate into their healing and decision-making process:

Clarify the Motivation. In many cases, pornography use is more about seeking an escape or mood-altering effect than it is about sex itself. Although pornography use often starts out as a youthful curiosity about sex, in most cases it develops into a way of escaping certain emotions and stressors. Looking at pornography can even be used to self-medicate depression and anxiety and to self-soothe loneliness or poor self-esteem. Understanding this can help cut through the faulty belief that being more sexual with a pornography user will reduce consumption, or that if someone is using pornography, his or her spouse must not be sexually available or attractive. In addition, understanding the non-sexual motivations behind pornography use can help a woman understand that her partner would have likely turned to pornography regardless of whom he married and that his pornography use is not a commentary on her attractiveness (even though it feels like an attack). Erroneous assumptions about the motivations around pornography use not only promote misplaced blame and shame, but also detract from holding the consumer responsible for choosing to deal with life's problems in maladaptive and harmful ways.
Beware of Comparing Reality to Fantasy. Many women will tell me they feel insecure and intimidated when they compare themselves to the pornography stars their husband lusts after. There are two issues here: (1) the destabilizing hurt caused by a husband's infidelity and (2) the dynamic of comparing oneself to someone who has prostituted herself in a pornographic scene. Let's look at the second part of this assumption. Many women believe they don't measure up to what their husband is neurotically and narcissistically seeking out because they think the porn stars represent a sexual ideal. This is one of the biggest lies pornography invites women to believe. Most pornography stars have histories of sexual abuse, drug use or addiction, mental health problems, failed relationships, cosmetic surgery, and/or sexually transmitted diseases. In short, the only thing that is modeled in pornography is sexual brokenness and spiritual disconnection. Men who recover from a pornography habit also come to this realization and ironically begin to "see" the beauty of their spouse as what they desire and need.
Ignore Comments That Invalidate the Seriousness of This Problem, and Seek Out People Who Understand the Issue. When a woman takes the risk to share this marital problem with a trusted friend or family member, it is not uncommon for her to encounter statements such as, "Boys will be boys," "All guys are into porn," or "At least he isn't cheating on you." Comments such as these not only demoralize and invalidate, but they also reflect a lack of understanding about the addictive potential this habit has and the impact pornography use has on relationships. Pornography use represents a serious breach of the marital bond and pulls sexual energy away from an intimate relationship. It is important to ignore comments that dismiss or invalidate the seriousness of this issue and to actively seek out the opinions and support of individuals who understand this issue well. As a woman sifts through the constraining and erroneous beliefs that compound the pain associated with a spouse's pornography use, she is better able to make healthy decisions and take steps that will facilitate healing. Although it is troubling to consider that an increasing number of women are facing this issue in their marriage, it is reassuring to know there are also a growing number of resources to support women and families dealing with this issue. With our continued support, the Lighted Candle Society will not only be able to help women get the support they need, but also be able to continue its unique fight against the pornography industry at large.
.............................................................................................................................................

Also: How do I guard my virtue?

Virtue is a pattern of thought and behavior based on high moral standards. It includes chastity. We live in a world in which virtue is belittled and attacked. We can guard our virtue by avoiding impure thoughts, language, and actions. Pornography is especially dangerous. As we “put on the whole armour of God” (see Ephesians 6:11–17) and rely on the strength of the Lord, we can protect ourselves against the adversary’s attacks on virtue and keep our thoughts and actions pure.

How might young women’s language, actions, and appearance affect others? How might young women be exposed to pornography? What gospel principles and preventive measures can help them keep their thoughts and actions pure?
.............................................................................................................................................

SEE: https://www.lds.org/search?lang=eng&que ... ornography

[Fiannan]

I was recently reading over commentary on psychopathology and relationships. The therapist was discussing the damage he had seen between spouses when one was a psychopath (male or female) and the other one was not. Of course the conclusion was that psychopaths were incapable of maintaining long-term relationships.

Then I read the commentary.

Many of the people who replied in the discussion section said that they (male or female) were psychopaths (by outright diagnosis or self-diagnosis through their study of the characteristics). Many noted they were successful, were great wives, husbands and parents and that they had been married for years, never cheated and sought to make their spouses happy if for no other reason than it was more logical to do so and have the benefit of parenthood and a happy marriage.

The most crucial observation noted was that the particular psychotherapist specialized in victims of psychopaths. So he only saw the failed marriages and pain when a man or woman came in and said they were married to a psychopath and experienced horrible results. There may have been financial problems, or stresses that have nothing to do with the psychopath and his or her mindset, but of course that will be seen as the crucial variable that caused every other problem to occur.

Point is, if a psychotherapist or counselor has a reputation for dealing with couples in which one has been involved with pornography then the porn use will be seen as the critical variable even though many other factors exist that cause marital problems. I believe many marriages in the Church where there are stressors that cause someone to contemplate divorce finally come to a toxic outcome when a wife finds porn in the husband's history folder. Now she has the power. She has the ultimate "get out of jail free" card. She can feel justified in breaking one of the most critical covenants in Christianity in general and Mormonism specifically and she will be praised and felt sorry for by her peers.

[Finrock]

Where much is given, much is required, meaning the men in the church hold the priesthood of God and should be holding themselves to higher standards as indicated in the above verse.

Women in the Church have as much priesthood as men do. They have the same responsibility to honor their priesthood as men do. Just as their are Priest, there are also Priestesses. There are Kings and Queens.

Women can and do exercise priesthood power and have taken the same oaths as men in this regard.

There is but one standard of Good that applies to both male and females equally.

-Finrock

[Finrock]

[Jesus Christ warned in Matt 5:28: ..."But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." and again in D&C 63:16: "And verily I say unto you, as I have said before, he that looketh on a woman to lust after her, or if any shall commit adultery in their hearts They shall not have the spirit, but shall deny the faith and shall fear."


Jesus called out men and warned them, just as the Ensign article was written from the perspective that a man is more likely to have this problem. So, does that mean that Jesus Christ was 'anti-male'? I can't help but believe that anyone who took offense at that Ensign article, or claimed it was damaging or harmful, would also be offended by what our Savior said.

That's how utterly ridiculous this was from an LDS point of view.[/color]

The KJV of the Bible was written and translated at a time when if the gender of the subject being spoken to was unknown, the masculine form of the pronoun was used. Or the masculine form of the pronoun was used when speaking generally. Only in the last 20 years or so has this changed. When I was in school growing up it was understood that when speaking in general the masculine pronoun "he" referred to both male and female.

Same thing is happening in Matthew. The masculine pronoun and the masculine form of the noun was used but it is clear that both sexes have committed adultery if they look upon a person and lust after them in their heart. Further, Jesus could also be referring to homosexual/lesbian lust. A woman can look upon a woman and lust after that woman in her heart and she would be committing adultery.

Clearly Jesus was calling out lust and whoever was lusting, male or female, and not calling out just men because only men lust and women do not or because women in Jesus's time did not lust or it was a problem predominantly with men.

-Finrock

[freedomforall]

Where much is given, much is required, meaning the men in the church hold the priesthood of God and should be holding themselves to higher standards as indicated in the above verse.

Women in the Church have as much priesthood as men do. They have the same responsibility to honor their priesthood as men do. Just as their are Priest, there are also Priestesses. There are Kings and Queens.

Women can and do exercise priesthood power and have taken the same oaths as men in this regard.

There is but one standard of Good that applies to both male and females equally.

-Finrock

Women in the church do not have the same priesthood power as men. Here is a talk by James E Faust on the topic of Priesthood Blessings.

Read: Priesthood Blessings

An excerpt:
Unlike Jacob, we do not need to wrestle physically much of the night for blessings to strengthen and magnify us. In the Church, blessings are available to all who are worthy through those authorized and even appointed to give priesthood blessings. Stake presidents, bishops, quorum presidents, and home teachers are authorized to give blessings. Worthy fathers and grandfathers, as well as other Melchizedek Priesthood holders, may give blessings to members in times of sickness and when important events occur. Such individual blessings are part of the continuous revelation that we claim as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Elder John A. Widtsoe stated, “Every father, having children born to him under the covenant, is to them as a patriarch, and he has the right to bless his posterity in the authority of the Priesthood which he holds.”4

We know that the gospel always has and always will operate through families. Since early biblical times, order has been brought into the house of Israel through family units. The family unit had inherently and internally the natural love and concern and the blood ties to bring a governing peace and stability to the peoples of God. The same is true today for essentially the same reasons. No other unit of society is an effective substitute for the ties of love and affection inherent in families. The natural leaders of the family unit are the parents, standing side by side as equals in their loving guidance of their children. Each parent brings a separate enriching influence. The power of the priesthood should be the dominant influence in family affairs. Priesthood blessings do not just involve men. They bless equally and fully the women and children of the family. Whatever diminishes family order is destructive to the family unit and to society.

Read: Handbook 2:Administering the Church

An excerpt:
Some ordinances are required for exaltation in the celestial kingdom for all accountable persons. These ordinances include baptism, confirmation, Melchizedek Priesthood ordination (for men), the temple endowment, and temple sealing.

Read: “This Is My Work and Glory” By Elder M. Russell Ballard

Why are men ordained to priesthood offices and not women? President Gordon B. Hinckley (1910–2008) explained that it was the Lord, not man, “who designated that men in His Church should hold the priesthood” and that it was also the Lord who endowed women with “capabilities to round out this great and marvelous organization, which is the Church and kingdom of God” (“Women of the Church,” Ensign, Nov. 1996, 70). … When all is said and done, the Lord has not revealed why He has organized His Church as He has.

Read:Women of the Church

An excerpt
No man who engages in such evil and unbecoming behavior is worthy of the priesthood of God. No man who so conducts himself is worthy of the privileges of the house of the Lord. I regret that there are some men undeserving of the love of their wives and children. There are children who fear their fathers, and wives who fear their husbands. If there be any such men within the hearing of my voice, as a servant of the Lord I rebuke you and call you to repentance. Discipline yourselves. Master your temper. Most of the things that make you angry are of very small consequence. And what a terrible price you are paying for your anger. Ask the Lord to forgive you. Ask your wife to forgive you. Apologize to your children.

And so, my beloved sisters, please know how much we appreciate you. You bring a measure of wholeness to us. You have great strength. With dignity and tremendous ability, you carry forward the remarkable programs of the Relief Society, the Young Women, and the Primary. You teach Sunday School. We walk at your side as your companions and your brethren with respect and love, with honor and great admiration. It was the Lord who designated that men in His Church should hold the priesthood. It was He who has given you your capabilities to round out this great and marvelous organization, which is the Church and kingdom of God. I bear testimony before the entire world of your worth, of your grace and goodness, of your remarkable abilities and tremendous contributions, and invoke the blessings of heaven upon you, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, amen.

Read: Bringing the Blessings of the Priesthood into Your Home

[freedomforall]

[Jesus Christ warned in Matt 5:28: ..."But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." and again in D&C 63:16: "And verily I say unto you, as I have said before, he that looketh on a woman to lust after her, or if any shall commit adultery in their hearts They shall not have the spirit, but shall deny the faith and shall fear."


Jesus called out men and warned them, just as the Ensign article was written from the perspective that a man is more likely to have this problem. So, does that mean that Jesus Christ was 'anti-male'? I can't help but believe that anyone who took offense at that Ensign article, or claimed it was damaging or harmful, would also be offended by what our Savior said.

That's how utterly ridiculous this was from an LDS point of view.[/color]

The KJV of the Bible was written and translated at a time when if the gender of the subject being spoken to was unknown, the masculine form of the pronoun was used. Or the masculine form of the pronoun was used when speaking generally. Only in the last 20 years or so has this changed. When I was in school growing up it was understood that when speaking in general the masculine pronoun "he" referred to both male and female.

Same thing is happening in Matthew. The masculine pronoun and the masculine form of the noun was used but it is clear that both sexes have committed adultery if they look upon a person and lust after them in their heart. Further, Jesus could also be referring to homosexual/lesbian lust. A woman can look upon a woman and lust after that woman in her heart and she would be committing adultery.

Clearly Jesus was calling out lust and whoever was lusting, male or female, and not calling out just men because only men lust and women do not or because women in Jesus's time did not lust or it was a problem predominantly with men.

-Finrock

This assertion I can agree with whole heartedly. The term "man" does encompass the whole human race.

Here is the best example of all...

Moses 1:39
39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

[Spaced_Out]

This assertion I can agree with whole heartedly. The term "man" does encompass the whole human race.

Here is the best example of all...

Moses 1:39
39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

The term Men no longer represent the human race, it has been banned in some US universities and now in Australian traffic lights..

Oxford University Joins The List Of Liberal Institutions Urging "Gender Neutral Pronouns"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-1 ... l-pronouns




Female traffic light signals to go up at pedestrian crossing as Committee for Melbourne tackles 'unconscious bias'

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-07/f ... ng/8330560

[freedomforall]

This assertion I can agree with whole heartedly. The term "man" does encompass the whole human race.

Here is the best example of all...

Moses 1:39
39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

The term Men no longer represent the human race, it has been banned in some US universities and now in Australian traffic lights..

Oxford University Joins The List Of Liberal Institutions Urging "Gender Neutral Pronouns"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-1 ... l-pronouns

Female traffic light signals to go up at pedestrian crossing as Committee for Melbourne tackles 'unconscious bias'

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-07/f ... ng/8330560

Since when does any word of man/woman supersede God's. It's shocking, to say the least, that anyone would have the nerve to claim that what God says is not what he means. Somebody is making fun, or mocking God in doing so. Or do people assume God has to now be politically correct to suit the small minds of man and their indifference to scriptural language?

[Finrock]

Where much is given, much is required, meaning the men in the church hold the priesthood of God and should be holding themselves to higher standards as indicated in the above verse.

Women in the Church have as much priesthood as men do. They have the same responsibility to honor their priesthood as men do. Just as their are Priest, there are also Priestesses. There are Kings and Queens.

Women can and do exercise priesthood power and have taken the same oaths as men in this regard.

There is but one standard of Good that applies to both male and females equally.

-Finrock

Women in the church do not have the same priesthood power as men. Here is a talk by James E Faust on the topic of Priesthood Blessings.

Read: Priesthood Blessings

An excerpt:
Unlike Jacob, we do not need to wrestle physically much of the night for blessings to strengthen and magnify us. In the Church, blessings are available to all who are worthy through those authorized and even appointed to give priesthood blessings. Stake presidents, bishops, quorum presidents, and home teachers are authorized to give blessings. Worthy fathers and grandfathers, as well as other Melchizedek Priesthood holders, may give blessings to members in times of sickness and when important events occur. Such individual blessings are part of the continuous revelation that we claim as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Elder John A. Widtsoe stated, “Every father, having children born to him under the covenant, is to them as a patriarch, and he has the right to bless his posterity in the authority of the Priesthood which he holds.”4

We know that the gospel always has and always will operate through families. Since early biblical times, order has been brought into the house of Israel through family units. The family unit had inherently and internally the natural love and concern and the blood ties to bring a governing peace and stability to the peoples of God. The same is true today for essentially the same reasons. No other unit of society is an effective substitute for the ties of love and affection inherent in families. The natural leaders of the family unit are the parents, standing side by side as equals in their loving guidance of their children. Each parent brings a separate enriching influence. The power of the priesthood should be the dominant influence in family affairs. Priesthood blessings do not just involve men. They bless equally and fully the women and children of the family. Whatever diminishes family order is destructive to the family unit and to society.

Read: Handbook 2:Administering the Church

An excerpt:
Some ordinances are required for exaltation in the celestial kingdom for all accountable persons. These ordinances include baptism, confirmation, Melchizedek Priesthood ordination (for men), the temple endowment, and temple sealing.

Read: “This Is My Work and Glory” By Elder M. Russell Ballard

Why are men ordained to priesthood offices and not women? President Gordon B. Hinckley (1910–2008) explained that it was the Lord, not man, “who designated that men in His Church should hold the priesthood” and that it was also the Lord who endowed women with “capabilities to round out this great and marvelous organization, which is the Church and kingdom of God” (“Women of the Church,” Ensign, Nov. 1996, 70). … When all is said and done, the Lord has not revealed why He has organized His Church as He has.

Read:Women of the Church

An excerpt
No man who engages in such evil and unbecoming behavior is worthy of the priesthood of God. No man who so conducts himself is worthy of the privileges of the house of the Lord. I regret that there are some men undeserving of the love of their wives and children. There are children who fear their fathers, and wives who fear their husbands. If there be any such men within the hearing of my voice, as a servant of the Lord I rebuke you and call you to repentance. Discipline yourselves. Master your temper. Most of the things that make you angry are of very small consequence. And what a terrible price you are paying for your anger. Ask the Lord to forgive you. Ask your wife to forgive you. Apologize to your children.

And so, my beloved sisters, please know how much we appreciate you. You bring a measure of wholeness to us. You have great strength. With dignity and tremendous ability, you carry forward the remarkable programs of the Relief Society, the Young Women, and the Primary. You teach Sunday School. We walk at your side as your companions and your brethren with respect and love, with honor and great admiration. It was the Lord who designated that men in His Church should hold the priesthood. It was He who has given you your capabilities to round out this great and marvelous organization, which is the Church and kingdom of God. I bear testimony before the entire world of your worth, of your grace and goodness, of your remarkable abilities and tremendous contributions, and invoke the blessings of heaven upon you, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, amen.

Read: Bringing the Blessings of the Priesthood into Your Home

In the temple, woman symbolically don the garments of the Holy Priesthood. They enter in to the essentially the same oaths as men and pass through the same trials and require the same progression in the priesthood. One progresses to a Priest while the other progresses to a Priestess. Heavenly Mother has and exercises priesthood authority. She is a Goddess.

Because current Church culture and policy doesn't reflect reality doesn't make reality not real. Of course we can reject the idea of a Heavenly Mother and we can reject the idea of Priestesses and we can reject the idea of Goddess and then there is no dilemma. However, I accept the doctrine of Heavenly Mother, of Goddesses, and Priestesses. Because I accept that doctrine, I must accept that women have priesthood.

-Finrock

[freedomforall]

In the temple, woman symbolically don the garments of the Holy Priesthood. They enter in to the essentially the same oaths as men and pass through the same trials and require the same progression in the priesthood. One progresses to a Priest while the other progresses to a Priestess. Heavenly Mother has and exercises priesthood authority. She is a Goddess.

Because current Church culture and policy doesn't reflect reality doesn't make reality not real. Of course we can reject the idea of a Heavenly Mother and we can reject the idea of Priestesses and we can reject the idea of Goddess and then there is no dilemma. However, I accept the doctrine of Heavenly Mother, of Goddesses, and Priestesses. Because I accept that doctrine, I must accept that women have priesthood.

-Finrock

There is a huge difference between assisting others in helping people receive their temple work...and holding the keys to perform ordinances requiring necessary keys to accomplish. Women can temporarily be an assistant in performances where the officiator holds keys.
Have you ever seen women doing the baptizing? Have you ever seen women doing any laying on of hands in confirming, bestowing the Gift of Holy Ghost, giving priesthood blessings or healing blessings? Do you ever see women standing in on a baby blessing in church?

They assist but do not hold priesthood keys continuously.

As for becoming Priests and Priestesses, we are only blessed to become such, predicated on faithfulness and commitment...and not have become Priests and Priestesses merely by our attendance in the temple. These blessings are earned through our determination to live according to every word coming forth out of the mouth of God, and not before.

Some one who knows for certain how this all works, please correct me where I may err. Please no "I think this is how it goes" or "personal biases" just the facts. Please.