"A Desolating Sickness"- Pornography

[singyourwayhome]

I'm sure a bunch of you get Meridian Magazine online...
But for those who don't, or didn't look today, this was there:

"A Desolating Sickness" How to Detect, Avoid and Overcome Pornography Use
http://www.ldsmag.com/index.php?option= ... =1&id=6158

Very very good article. I hadn't thought about pornography as being a 'desolating sickness'.

[Geeswell]

I've talked with my wife about that idea that that could be the desolating sickness. President Hinkley said to avoid pronography like the plague!

so it very well could be. It is a spiritual inhibitor in a very real sense. Having been exposed to it at a young age, it is like a viral infection. if you aren't super careful you are simply doomed.

not only is it a spiritual inhibitor, but you can't perform priesthood duties if you are addicted to Pornography. And you wouldn't have the power of the priesthood either.

so sickness would be a pretty good word to describe it indeed!

thanks for the link!

[Geeswell]

I had made the above comments before reading the article. I guess everything i said was pretty much in the article, sorry hehe.

[LukeAir2008]

Yes, pornography is a desolating sickness and plague that probably affects millions of members of the church - both men and women. I don't think its the sickness mentioned in D&C 45:31 but it is most likely one of the catalysts that will bring on that desolating plague. Lust is the sin of this generation. It affects the High Priest down to the Deacon, it affects the Relief Society sister and mother down to the Young Women.

Its interesting that the magazine identifies the Marriott Corporation as one of the companies benefiting from the sale of pornography. I remember staying in a Marriott hotel room and making a mental note of the fact that the placard on top of the TV advertising hard core pornography for rental was right in my face...and yet the token copy of the Book of Mormon was hidden in a drawer under a pile of other tourist literature. Those who say that Bro Marriott has no control over the pornography sold in his hotels are fooling themselves. He has enough control to have a token copy of the Book of Mormon placed in every room.

[Amore Vero]

While pornography is definately one of the many lustful plagues of the day, it is not near as destructive to children, spouses & society as the desolating plague of 'Divorce'. Which the Prophets say is the primary tool & plague of the Adversary today. Divorce is far worse than pornography or homosexuality. Divorce is one of the greatest spouse & child abuses there is.

Divorce seems to be now striking & destroying one or more in nearly every family, either the parents or the grown children. Even worse is that everyone today, even in the Church, seems to either commit, encourage or accept it. It is no longer seen as the huge adulterous abomination that it usually is.

What we 1st abhored, then tolerated, we now embrace.

Though the Prophet's do say there may be some 'rare' justifed divorces, even justified divorces are still almost as destructive to the children, family & society, as unjustified ones. And the major problem is, everyone thinks they are the rare justified case & thus it spreads as one of the most contagious & deadly diseases of all time. Justified does not mean it's 'right' to do or you 'should' do it, it means you 'could' do it without receiving some of the eternal consequences, but many painful consequences here & in eternity remain even when justified. Thus breaking our covenants to our spouse is never a good or right thing & always eventually brings pain & deep remorse.

"Divorce is the principle tool of Satan." Pres. Kimball

"Divorce is an evil. Divorce is not a cure for difficulty... Divorce selfishly hurts children... Bishops - never encourage divorce, encourage them to be reconciled, to adjust their lives, their own personal lives generally. Justifiable divorces are rare." The Teachings of S.W.Kimball, p.314.

"This plague is not of God, but rather the work of the Adversary." Pres. Hinckley

"The divorce itself does not constitute the entire evil, but the very acceptance of divorce as a cure is also a serious sin of this generation... Divorce is not a cure for difficulty. But is a merely an escape & a weak one... This is not the way of the Lord." Pres. Kimball 1976 Devotional Speeches of the Year, 142-55.

"There is a remedy for all of this. It is not found in divorce. It is found in the Gospel of the Son of God." Pres. Hinckley

[ndjili]

[Amore Vero]

ndjili,
I'm glad your husband is so committed to you. But it would be a greater peace & assurance to you to know that civil & religious leaders would not support him in abandoning you if he ever became weak again when the going gets rough in later years. For he has shown that he chose not to keep his covenants of True Love for his 1st wife & just gave up & so he could do that again. So it would be better if there was no way he could ever leave you (unless you committed some huge sin or crime), like women had that protection 50 years ago, but don't anymore.

We need to educate civil & religious leaders to again protect 'good' spouses & children from abandonment. Today sadly, many leaders support abandonment & do not excommunicate a spouse who unjustifiably divorces their spouse, as the Prophets say should happen. Many leaders in fact, are deceived to allow someone who abandoned their spouse & children unjustifiably to even remarry in the temple. For of course the unrighteous abandoning spouse almost always feels that they are righteous & justified & so they claim so in temple recommend interviews, etc. So we have many active members living in adulterous temple remarriages today, who of course say they are much happier in their 2nd marriage, that's how adultery is, it feels great for sometimes a long while.

But being happier in another marriage is not proof that it is a good thing or right or valid. Most people could divorce their spouse & find someone better & who they would enjoy more, that's not a way to measure what's right.

I know many people living in adulterous remarriages who say they are much happier, but they haven't got to the repentant stage yet, for most don't til the next life, they haven't come to themselves & realized & felt all the pain & anguish of their sins of breaking their covenants to the 1st spouse & children. They haven't received the penalties & punishments of their sins yet, they are just enjoying the perks of sin & adultery, which of course Satan makes seem wonderful for awhile, sometimes a long time. That is how Satan sells divorce, it does seem & feel much better than struggling it out with an unrighteous or unloving spouse in a 1st marriage.

Who would stay in a difficult marriage if it was ok & right to leave & find someone better. If divorce was ok, you would have most all marriages ending, for most everyone struggles with some form of abuse or adultery in their marriage at some point. If all those marriages divorced because of abuse & adultery going on, this world wouldn't last very long. In fact, the Prophets have warned the destruction of the world is coming upon us because there are so many divorces & disintegration of marriages & families.

Heavenly Father knew that in most marriages at least one spouse would become unrighteous & abusive or adulterous in some way, that's why he commanded marriage & True Love, so a strong person could help a weak one, to someday repent & be saved.

But those staying in difficult & painful marriages still believe divorce isn't an option & if they are abandoned, they don't believe remarriage is an option either, they believe in keeping their covenants & waiting for their spouse to return & repent, as all unrighteous spouses must someday.

[A Me]

Amore Vero,

I think you're referring to D&C 132: 26 which appears on the surface to mean that a couple can sin as much as they like in this life and it won't break the sealing between the couple. However, that verse only promises that they will both of them rise up on the morning of the first resurrection, though they will experience the "buffetings of Satan" in the flesh.

Verse 44 of the same section makes 26 a little more plain.

And if she [the wife married in the New and Everlasting Covenant] hath not committed adultery, but is innocent and hath not broken her vow, and she knoweth it, and I reveal it unto you, my servant Joseph, then shall you have power, by the power of my Holy Priesthood, to tak her and give her unto him that hath not committed adultery but hath been faithful; for he shall be made ruler over many.

So, even if the two of them wake up on the morning of the first resurrection clothed in power and glory everlasting, it doesn't necessarily mean the two of them will be sealed to each other.

As for a man marrying someone else, D&C 132: 61-62 is pretty plain. And as far as I know this law is still followed in temple sealings in that men can be sealed to as many women as they like. One sister I know received a letter from a temple asking for her permission for her ex-husband to be sealed to another woman. No "temple divorce" necessary. However, another woman I know had to get a "temple divorce" in order to get sealed to a new husband.

This is the way current prophets interpret that scripture.

But that's polygamy in the eternities and another topic.

On the question of marriage being instituted so that one person can strengthen another, that only goes so far. If it was truly part of the purpose of marriage, then God wouldn't give a wife innocent of adultery to another, more righteous man.

I agree divorce is too common. But to say a man and wife should be together no matter what is in line with Lucifer's plan. Countries that have put that in place, where even adultery couldn't divorce a couple, had enormous problems with infidelity (just look at England's laws in the old days and all the social rules that had to be kept in place to keep women pure... France was worse).

One final thought: Lucifer loves to tell us, "There is no other way. You have no way out."

Just so it's said; not for you, but for others.

[A Me]

To bring this topic back to the tracks it began to jump...

... there's a very good book on the physical side of pornography addiction called He Restoreth My Soul by Donald L. Hilton, M.D. It's very clear after reading that book that it is truly as physiological an addiction as any drug user's. It's a very fascinating look and I highly recommend the book.

[Amore Vero]

Amore Vero,

I think you're referring to D&C 132: 26 which appears on the surface to mean that a couple can sin as much as they like in this life and it won't break the sealing between the couple. However, that verse only promises that they will both of them rise up on the morning of the first resurrection, though they will experience the "buffetings of Satan" in the flesh.

Verse 44 of the same section makes 26 a little more plain.

And if she [the wife married in the New and Everlasting Covenant] hath not committed adultery, but is innocent and hath not broken her vow, and she knoweth it, and I reveal it unto you, my servant Joseph, then shall you have power, by the power of my Holy Priesthood, to tak her and give her unto him that hath not committed adultery but hath been faithful; for he shall be made ruler over many.

So, even if the two of them wake up on the morning of the first resurrection clothed in power and glory everlasting, it doesn't necessarily mean the two of them will be sealed to each other.

As for a man marrying someone else, D&C 132: 61-62 is pretty plain. And as far as I know this law is still followed in temple sealings in that men can be sealed to as many women as they like. One sister I know received a letter from a temple asking for her permission for her ex-husband to be sealed to another woman. No "temple divorce" necessary. However, another woman I know had to get a "temple divorce" in order to get sealed to a new husband.

This is the way current prophets interpret that scripture.

But that's polygamy in the eternities and another topic.

On the question of marriage being instituted so that one person can strengthen another, that only goes so far. If it was truly part of the purpose of marriage, then God wouldn't give a wife innocent of adultery to another, more righteous man.

I agree divorce is too common. But to say a man and wife should be together no matter what is in line with Lucifer's plan. Countries that have put that in place, where even adultery couldn't divorce a couple, had enormous problems with infidelity (just look at England's laws in the old days and all the social rules that had to be kept in place to keep women pure... France was worse).

One final thought: Lucifer loves to tell us, "There is no other way. You have no way out."

Just so it's said; not for you, but for others.

I appreciate your response. I actually was not thinking of D&C 132 in any way. In fact, that scripture does not mean that a spouse can sin all they want & still have any rights or sealing to their spouse or children. Huge sins destroy that sealing & right no matter if they were married in the temple. But the other spouse can keep their end of the covenant & sealing & still save the other IF they want to in the eternities. But it is not a sure thing at all for the wicked spouse. One must be righteous to come forth in the morning of the 1st resurrection & receive those great blessings of glory. That scripture means that IF a person sins & then repents before they die, then they can still attain that glory.

Also, it is impossible for a man to be truly sealed to more than 1 living woman at a time. For when a man dates or remarries that breaks the sealing & covenant of faithfulness to his 1st wife. I agree it can seem like he is still sealed to his 1st wife because the Church keeps the sealing in tact on the woman's end of things until the woman decides to either remarry or if she was innocent in the divorce & stays single, she can use that sealing power to save her husband & have him back with her in the eternities if he wasn't justified to be divorced from her. And at that point he will be very sorry for his dating & remarriage to someone else & be very glad to get back to his 1st wife & children & so grateful to his 1st wife for saving him, for else he would have lived all eternity painfully single in the Telestial Kingdom.

But there is no way a man can remarry another woman & still stay completely faithful & loving to his 1st wife, which is the requirement to keep the sealing valid on his end. When a man dates or remarries he gives up all rights & sealing to his 1st wife whether it's done officially on paper yet or not. In fact, no marriage is eternal unless at least one spouse has True Love for the other spouse.

Only if the 1st wife dies, can a man be truly sealed to another woman too, as also a woman can now be sealed to more than just one husband, she must have died 1st though before all the sealings to all her husbands take place.

[Nan]

I believe it is pornography is one of the plagues pored out before the second coming. And it leads to a lot of marital problems and divorce. People involved in pornography struggle to be emotionally and spiritually intimate with their spouse.

[A Me]

Amore,

Also, it is impossible for a man to be truly sealed to more than 1 living woman at a time.For when a man dates or remarries that breaks the sealing & covenant of faithfulness to his 1st wife.

Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and many other worthy priesthood holders would disagree with you.

And at that point he will be very sorry for his dating & remarriage to someone else & be very glad to get back to his 1st wife & children & so grateful to his 1st wife for saving him, for else he would have lived all eternity painfully single in the Telestial Kingdom.

So, are you saying that Joseph Smith was bound for singleness in the Telestial Kingdom for marrying (and being eternally sealed to) Eliza and Zina, among others? I would suggest reading the story of how Joseph Smith convinced Zina to become sealed to him, if that's the case. (Your argument would also make the Lion House a house of sin, btw.)

God has never told a man he couldn't remarry, whether he was divorced or widowed. Women are a different matter.

As for D&C 132, if you aren't referring to that scripture, what are you using to support your argument? You know, don't answer that. Make a new thread if you like. I'm tired of watching threads get derailed by pointless arguments.

[kathyn]

ndjili,
I'm glad your husband is so committed to you. But it would be a greater peace & assurance to you to know that civil & religious leaders would not support him in abandoning you if he ever became weak again when the going gets rough in later years. For he has shown that he chose not to keep his covenants of True Love for his 1st wife & just gave up & so he could do that again. So it would be better if there was no way he could ever leave you (unless you committed some huge sin or crime), like women had that protection 50 years ago, but don't anymore.

amore vero, you don't know what you are talking about. This young man's first wife left him for another man. He had no clue what she was doing behind his back and it broke his heart. Shame on you for judging without knowing the facts. He kept his covenants, but his first wife did not and she was not repentant, either.

[Amore Vero]

Amore,

Also, it is impossible for a man to be truly sealed to more than 1 living woman at a time.For when a man dates or remarries that breaks the sealing & covenant of faithfulness to his 1st wife.

Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and many other worthy priesthood holders would disagree with you.

And at that point he will be very sorry for his dating & remarriage to someone else & be very glad to get back to his 1st wife & children & so grateful to his 1st wife for saving him, for else he would have lived all eternity painfully single in the Telestial Kingdom.

So, are you saying that Joseph Smith was bound for singleness in the Telestial Kingdom for marrying (and being eternally sealed to) Eliza and Zina, among others? I would suggest reading the story of how Joseph Smith convinced Zina to become sealed to him, if that's the case. (Your argument would also make the Lion House a house of sin, btw.)

God has never told a man he couldn't remarry, whether he was divorced or widowed. Women are a different matter.

When polygamy was being lived there were different rules than today. Today we don't live polygamy anymore & so men can't be sealed to 2 'living' women at the same time anymore. Today being with a 2nd wife breaks the covenant of faithfulness & thus breaks the sealing to the 1st wife.

[Amore Vero]

ndjili,
I'm glad your husband is so committed to you. But it would be a greater peace & assurance to you to know that civil & religious leaders would not support him in abandoning you if he ever became weak again when the going gets rough in later years. For he has shown that he chose not to keep his covenants of True Love for his 1st wife & just gave up & so he could do that again. So it would be better if there was no way he could ever leave you (unless you committed some huge sin or crime), like women had that protection 50 years ago, but don't anymore.

amore vero, you don't know what you are talking about. This young man's first wife left him for another man. He had no clue what she was doing behind his back and it broke his heart. Shame on you for judging without knowing the facts. He kept his covenants, but his first wife did not and she was not repentant, either.

Kathyn,
Even though she left him & committed adultery he still chose to break his covenants & promises to have True Love for her, the kind that never ends or gives up. He chose to instead move on to find another spouse.

He could have chosen to keep his covenants of faithfulness to his 1st wife as many do, despite her unfaithfulness & waited until she returned & repented, as she must one day. A person with the True Love of Christ in their heart for their spouse would never move on to someone else, but patiently wait for their prodical spouse to return someday, if even it's in the next life.

[A Me]

When polygamy was being lived there were different rules than today. Today we don't live polygamy anymore & so men can't be sealed to 2 'living' women at the same time anymore. Today being with a 2nd wife breaks the covenant of faithfulness & thus breaks the sealing to the 1st wife.

Still no source. You must be lying if you are that unwilling to provide a source.

From what I've seen from the scriptures and the words of the prophets, there has never been a sanction against a man getting married again if he's already divorced his spouse or she's passed on. Never. A woman, yes, there are rules. But a man has never been told not to remarry. This would go in line with the eternal principles outlined in D&C 132. Again, show me your source.

And next time, please start a new thread and direct me there as I asked you to do in my previous post. The next time I respond to you, if you haven't already started a new thread on the subject, I will.

[Nan]

Amore Vero are you married? It sounds like from your posts that you used to be married but he moved on to another woman and that you believe if you stay true to your covenants you will get him back and she won't have him.

[Amore Vero]

Amore Vero are you married? It sounds like from your posts that you used to be married but he moved on to another woman and that you believe if you stay true to your covenants you will get him back and she won't have him.

Yes, I am married.

[ndjili]

[Fiannan]

I believe it is pornography is one of the plagues pored out before the second coming. And it leads to a lot of marital problems and divorce. People involved in pornography struggle to be emotionally and spiritually intimate with their spouse.

I am not convinced that LDS wives who leave their husbands "over pornography" are being really righteous. I am also not sure what level of pornographic use constitutes addiction. My take would be if a husband or wife preferred porn over true intimacy with their spouce then they would be in a state of addiction. I also believe that if a person took risks like accessing porn at work then they are addicted. However, those who occasionally use the stuff may be doing something immoral, but not psychologically disturbed in any way.

As for divorce, their are many couples who either ignore the other person's use, or both engage in it together. Again, I am not supportive of porn since you are paying people to commit fornication or adultery for the camera. I also believe that one big reason people are more open to same-sex experimentation and marriage is due to porn. However, I think it is a greater sin to go all hysterical when one finds out the wife or husband has looked at porn very occasionally.

Again, porn is generally propaganda for a hedonistic lifestyle that places fun over commitment. My preference would be to see it banned, but it is too profitable for "legitimate" corporations to see that happen. In fact, I predict that in 20 years you all will be looking back at 2010 as "the good 'ol days" so to speak in regards to keeping pornography away from your kids or grandkids. Technological innovations will make it far more interactive an experience than just watching a screen.

[Nan]

I don't think men understand the pain they cause when they choose to indulge in porn. Most of the divorces I know about personally are because porn was the beginning. They then moved on to other things. An addiction to porn is quite serious and you need others help to fight it. Satan loves to send lies of how it is no big deal and you can overcome it all by yourself. As long as it stays hidden and people are not seeking help satan will win. If you have problems with porn and a wife willing to stay and help you fight, you are truly blessed. It takes an incredible amount of love to stay and help someone fight especially when what they are indulging in is so emotionally and spiritually damaging to the person staying.

[pjbrownie]

The problem is this, "“whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

This is the true root of the problem, but we don't usually shame men for oogling, rubbernecking, looking at the Cosmo mags or checking out a rerun of Baywatch, flirting with waitresses, etc. It's all the same problem, but for some reason, we use shame with porn, which makes it worse. We tell men that if "you look once, you're a man, but if you look twice, you're not a missionary (or a good husband for that matter)." You shouldn't look even once.

How many men can truly say they live up to this standard? I would say that most of us struggle with elements of this for time-to-time. It's part of the biological makeup of men, the natural man in particular. We are programmed to smell every flower. It helps if women understand this. My wife understands this. When I have had problems lusting or checking out someone other than her, she knows its doesn't mean that I don't love her, but that I haven't completely overcome the natural man in me. It's excessively hard when midriff walk in front of you in a public place. THAT is porn, believe it or not, and you can't avoid it. But to be fair, part of the epidemic of porn is the excessive alarm and pain that the woman feels when the man has a lustful thought--it's based on social shame, the misunderstanding of men, and misplaced expectations. In a sense, they are part of the problem. To put things into perspective, how many men are alarmed when women obsess over Jane Austin or Twilight as the ideal type of relationship (which is just as destructive to real love, IMO). It doesn't have the shame associated with it.

[Fiannan]

Can we say the desire to check out another woman is part of being a "natural" or primal man? If one is single then one expects a man to notice, yet as we know, polygamy is at a higher stage than monogamy and therefore what might be unnatural is to expect a married man not to notice other women (as in a perfect society he would be perfectly able to be married, and then consider taking on additional mates).
In the Old Testament, the 10 Commandments says a man cannot covet another man's wife (note, she is married) but no such prohibition is given to women. Why? Simple, a single woman can look at a married man since she has the opportunity to be married to him if she (and he) so desire.
There are biological differences between the way that males and females look upon sexuality. However, it is A MYTH that women are not stimulated by sight and that men are not stimulated by warmth and romance. Studies on female reactions to pornographic images show that women have the same mental stimulation a man has -- except heterosexual males do not like men while women react physically to heterosexual or lesbian images equally. However, when it comes to porn viewing, males tend to watch for longer periods of time, while females tent to access the stuff almost as frequently (if they are under 40 years of age) but spend far fewer hours there. And no, I am not talking about some romance stuff -- women are accessing the same sites as men, although from what I understand they prefer movies that have a story injected into the plot. And one more thing, TV programs like True Blood and Big Love seem to mostly have female audiences. So women are into erotic vampire themes and polygamy? Interesting.
Just a few observations if someone wants to take issue then please feel free.

[Amore Vero]

Fiannan,

The requirement to be worthy of plural marriage is having 'True Love' for your spouse. And that is an extremely rare trait, especially in a man. If a man does not have True Love for his wife, she is under no obligation to go along with polygamy nor should she until her husband is truly righteous & possesses this kind of love. True love is the proof of righteousness. Anyone with True Love would never look around at other men or women or even have a desire to. They would be repulsed at being with anyone else.

In righteous plural marriage the wife does all the choosing & looking around for another wife, & a righteous husband would have it no other way, for he would not want to hurt & disrespect his wife by running around after other women & he would be repulsed even to do so. A righteous man would rather die than live polygamy & thus would not have any desires for it & would have more pain & reluctance at living it than his wife. His 1st wife's feelings are always his highest priority as was Abrahams for Sarah, for the 1st wife makes the greatest sacrifice. He only would live it at his wife's & God's request.

So, I do not believe that a righteous man who has the Spirit of the Lord has any desire or inclination to look at or check out other women. He is simply just too madly in love with his wife to even think or have any desire to do that. He has no eyes for anyone else. He is completely faithful to his wife in thought, word & deed. As the Prophets have asked him to be. Righteous women are also just as faithful & in love.

[mattctr]

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST MATTHEW, CHAPTER 5:27-30.

27 ¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit aadultery:
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.
29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

How literally should people interpret the solution offered by these verses of scripture? It would bring new meaning to phrases like, "The blind leading the blind."

Our society is pornographic, from movies and television to fashion, apparel, and advertising. The question is where we keep our own personal thresholds or tolerance levels for pornographic content. You (and your children, brothers, sisters, parents, etc.) will inevitably encounter pornographic material (anything designed to stimulate sexual response) around you, unless you have completely detached yourself from society. So, living in a society steeped with pornographic imagery, what can we do to set a high standard to avoid the stuff in the first place, and respond to the stuff effectively when efforts to shield ourselves fail?

Finally, at what point does it behoove someone to take an extreme route and pluck out their eye? Is there a safe procedure for plucking out an eye? (Or if this is symbolic only, how do we symbolically pluck out an eye?)