Is looking at pornography on the same level as fornication as a sin?

[Fiannan]

The act of unchastity is worse. However, porn is feeding your temptation to commit the act. You should be pulling and moving away from temptation, or turning away (repent means to turn away ) from the temptations.

One wonders, is the only thing separating the average Hollywood movie or prime-time drama from porn the amount of anatomy hidden by a sheet?

[Crackers]

I do.

How many women could restrain their spending if they had lots of money? How many could restrain their eating if good food is all around.

I do too. Now that we have established that except for Elizabeth and I (we must be the only ones in the whole world!), all women are fat, sex-withholding, unworthy creatures, with no self-control, who are only interested in money…

Maybe we could address the issue of using that as an excuse to view porn and participate in other unmentionable activities because they somehow fall short of fornication. By the same reasoning, when I get mad at someone, I should consider cutting off one of their fingers, because that is definitely better than killing them, and it might be necessary in order to prevent me from killing them! What a great idea- go for the “lesser” though still terrible sin, because you have got to blow off some steam somehow!

Maybe this whole issue of which sin is worse wouldn't be an issue one would need to grapple with if one would focus on finding, creating, maintaining or repairing a meaningful partnership.

[Crackers]

My only point is why would God create a male body that can get prostate cancer if they are not sexually released enough and then command to obey all chastity laws. What are people who are forever single supposed to do? Just accept the fact that they'll likely get prostate cancer? What do doctors say?

Well, I'm not sure I would agree with your premise, although I do believe it is healthier to be engaged on a regular basis. Even conceding your point, the plan is for us to marry, not to remain single. Not everything works out as perfectly as we would like. No one wants to have any medical concerns that are beyond his control foisted on him, but that is the world we live in. It's the age-old question of, "Why does God allow bad things to happen?"

[braingrunt]

I do.

How many women could restrain their spending if they had lots of money? How many could restrain their eating if good food is all around.

I do too. Now that we have established that except for Elizabeth and I (we must be the only ones in the whole world!), all women are fat, sex-withholding, unworthy creatures, with no self-control, who are only interested in money…

Maybe we could address the issue of using that as an excuse to view porn and participate in other unmentionable activities because they somehow fall short of fornication. By the same reasoning, when I get mad at someone, I should consider cutting off one of their fingers, because that is definitely better than killing them, and it might be necessary in order to prevent me from killing them! What a great idea- go for the “lesser” though still terrible sin, because you have got to blow off some steam somehow!

Maybe this whole issue of which sin is worse wouldn't be an issue one would need to grapple with if one would focus on finding, creating, maintaining or repairing a meaningful partnership.

wow. Knocked it out of the park.

[Fiannan]

My only point is why would God create a male body that can get prostate cancer if they are not sexually released enough and then command to obey all chastity laws. What are people who are forever single supposed to do? Just accept the fact that they'll likely get prostate cancer? What do doctors say?

Single men die at a much higher rate than married men. Women who do not reproduce are more likely to develop breast and reproductive cancers. Perhaps a Darwinian would say that in the past, when resources were scarce, this was a way to weed out those members of a community who were not engaged in reproduction and keeping the community going.

Just throwing in the Darwinian point of view on that one.

[jsk]

Such a simple question from the original poster and three pages of deflection and arguments.

Both fornication and porn are evils to be shunned. But clearly the actual act of formication is much worse.

How is this even debatable?

[David13]

My only point is why would God create a male body that can get prostate cancer if they are not sexually released enough and then command to obey all chastity laws. What are people who are forever single supposed to do? Just accept the fact that they'll likely get prostate cancer? What do doctors say?

Single men die at a much higher rate than married men. Women who do not reproduce are more likely to develop breast and reproductive cancers. Perhaps a Darwinian would say that in the past, when resources were scarce, this was a way to weed out those members of a community who were not engaged in reproduction and keeping the community going.

Just throwing in the Darwinian point of view on that one.

I don't know the Darwin theory too extensive, but I'm wondering if you shouldn't really be talking about productivity in a different sense, in the sense of producing something for the community.
This thought arises from the idea that, is it true, the welfare people are far more "productive" in offspring output than the materially productive in a community?
dc

[RocknRoll]

Normal sexual relations with the opposite sex as ordained of God for reproduction, whether in or without marriage, is a natural act, pornography is not.
In my opinion pornography is worse.

Really? So, you’re saying if I bring up a picture of a neked lady on my phone (something I could do in a matter of seconds, if so inclined), it would have been better if I’d just gone off and had sex with someone other than my wife? I’m sure my wife would vehemently disagree with that. As would my bishop.

I really can’t wrap my mind around attitudes like this. You do realize that probably 90% of the priesthood holders and 50% of the RS ladies in your ward have looked at porn at least once in their lives. But I would guess only a small fraction have committed adultery.

[Elizabeth]

Many men can and do live righteous Christian lives, keep your thoughts pure and so will your actions be.
A great example was the recently departed Billy Graham.

I attended two Billy Graham Crusades and at 13years I went forward to the strains of "I come" ... of course I had no need to do so, I was already a committed Christian and one of the voluntary helpers/ushers

https://constitution.com/scandal-free-l ... as-pastor/

"America’s leaders honoured “America’s Pastor” Billy Graham by receiving his body to lay in respect and honour in the rotunda of the U.S. Capitol. The late morning ceremony was relatively brief. From the time the hearse arrived at the back Capitol steps until the closing benediction was less than one hour. In between, the benediction was given by the House of Representatives Chaplain and meaningful remarks were made by the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnel, House Speaker Paul Ryan, and President Donald Trump before these three each paced a display of flowers at the casket bier. The familiar Graham Crusade song “Just As I Am” was played and sung by Christian musician Michael W. Smith and the benediction was given by the Senate Chaplain.

Everything which was done, said, and sung was warm, reflective, and respectful. But, it was keywords in the benediction that was most meaningful to me. Senate Chaplain Barry Black thanked God for “the gift of your servant, William Franklin Graham, Jr. We are grateful for his scandal-free life of integrity, characterized by conduct that was above reproach.” In his 100th year, with over sixty years of consistent evangelistic ministry with 419 evangelistic outreaches, 210-million people reached face to face and over 2-million professions of faith, “Mr. Graham” and his team had lived out a mutual covenant of integrity, sexual purity, honesty, and humility. These biblical principles kept this man of God and his ministry free from scandals and, instead, empowered them each to live “life of integrity, characterised by conduct that was above reproach.”

In 1948, Graham and his founding team members, including Cliff Barrows, George Beverly Shea, and Grady Wilson, were conducting a series of meetings near Modesto, California. Although he was just 29 years old at the time, he had been a full-time evangelist for several years, ministering as part of the popular Youth for Christ organization.

But, as opportunities for independent campaigns were developing, including the future/historic one in downtown Los Angeles, he and his team wanted to avoid the public and private problems and scandals that plagued other evangelists.

Graham asked his team members to pray and then write down the issues they thought they would face, and how they should deal with them. Cliff Barrows recalls that the next morning they all met and compared notes. Each man had written the same four items. They were:

To be men of integrity.
To live lives of sexual purity.
To be honest in accountability to God, donors, and each other.
To live with humility.
After further prayer, asking God for confirmation, they agreed that these high, Biblical standards and principles would govern the way they lived their personal lives and conducted their ministry, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association.

In his autobiography, Just As I Am, Billy Graham went into further detail about the resolutions, which became known as “the Modesto Manifesto.”

The second item on the list was the danger of sexual immorality. We all knew of evangelists who had fallen into immorality while separated from their families by travel. We pledged among ourselves to avoid any situation that would have even the appearance of compromise or suspicion. From that day on, I did not travel, meet or eat alone with a woman other than my wife.

This wise principle of avoiding spending time alone with women to whom they are not married, however pure the intent or innocent the setting, has become known as “The Billy Graham Rule” and has been practiced by many male Christian leaders, including Vice President Mike Pence."

In the current context of sexual abuse and allegations, avoiding even the appearance of evil continues to be a wise practice for any “man after God’s own heart.”

Thank you, Lord, for such a man named Billy Graham. For your word teaches us to “Mark the blameless man, and consider the upright, for the end of that man is peace (Psalms 37:37 MEV)."

[Seek the Truth]

So what is the church's position on married people releasing sexual tension themselves,

I am certain the church doesn't have a position.

[Crackers]

So what is the church's position on married people releasing sexual tension themselves,

I am certain the church doesn't have a position.

Mormon Doctrine and The Miracle of Forgiveness spell it out pretty clearly, and there are others as well. I realize these two are a little older and not canonical, though the latter used to be missionary approved reading material, and was written by a modern prophet. I suspect the CHI1 may provide some insight. It is not discussed much directly anymore, true. What do we learn from the Holy Ghost on this topic? If it gives you unease (stupor of thought?), then maybe we should let that teach us something. If we truly feel it to be acceptable, why the need to seek its justification? (I realize not everyone here is doing that. Just using these quotes to continue the conversation.)

[abijah]

all women are fat, sex-withholding, unworthy creatures, with no self-control, who are only interested in money…

A great many are and I pity them. Womanhood, the role of daughter, sister, mother, wife have been under violent attack, so much that it seems there are a great many girls today who don't know what to become. I can think of no holier calling than of mother, yet girls are raised to think of children as burdens, cash-suckers and oftentimes "accidents". To be a wife is a sacred, serious thing, yet marital fidelity and humility are seen as boring and unfulfilling.

It's the same situation with men

[brianj]

It wasn't that long ago that some mothers sent their daughters to etiquette school to help them learn to be a good spouse. Or that would caution their daughter if she started gaining weight because she won't land a good husband if she lets' herself go. Who set good examples of service to their husband.

These days, even in church, I come across wicked women mocking and scorning their husbands. Women who will do laundry for the rest of the family and cook for the kids, but will indignantly say their husband can cook his own food and do his own laundry.

Marriage needs to be a two way street of service. Too many people have forgotten this. Yes, there are guys who do little to nothing for their spouse, but most men and women would acknowledge these guys are jerks. However, in today's world, guys who expect anything from their wife or don't give her everything are increasingly viewed as jerks, users, misogynists, etc. Some here have accused me of hating women, but that's not it at all. I hate this great wickedness and I feel contempt for people who adopt and encourage this wickedness.

[Fiannan]

It wasn't that long ago that some mothers sent their daughters to etiquette school to help them learn to be a good spouse. Or that would caution their daughter if she started gaining weight because she won't land a good husband if she lets' herself go. Who set good examples of service to their husband.

That is true. In fact in the Bible there is a verse saying it is the duty of mothers to teach their daughters to love. Maybe it does not come naturally. There is also a verse about the virtuous wife.

These days, even in church, I come across wicked women mocking and scorning their husbands. Women who will do laundry for the rest of the family and cook for the kids, but will indignantly say their husband can cook his own food and do his own laundry.

I would hope these are a very small minority of women in or out of the Church.

Too many people have forgotten this. Yes, there are guys who do little to nothing for their spouse, but most men and women would acknowledge these guys are jerks. However, in today's world, guys who expect anything from their wife or don't give her everything are increasingly viewed as jerks, users, misogynists, etc. Some here have accused me of hating women, but that's not it at all. I hate this great wickedness and I feel contempt for people who adopt and encourage this wickedness.

Yes, there has been an effort to demonize men, there is no doubt about that. Sadly, in Church, many of our leaders came of age in WW2 when it was common for males high up in hierarchical status to lecture men on what they should be doing and an attitude of those lower in status to take on a, "Yes sir! We shall do better to be best, sir!" Of course the culture taught that women should be nurturing, kind and encourage men in a loving way - in this, men could rise to greater levels of achievement feeling the push to do better, and the nurturing support of a wife to provide comfort and sustain him in whatever level he was at.

So yes, many men in leadership roles are in their 90s or late 80s and still see the world in this way. Yet times have changed. The men give "the troops" in priesthood their "Get out there and do better!" but often the wives are confused of their own roles in our evil, American, consumer, society and have no time or energy to sustain their husbands or are told how much "losers" they are on TV, in education or their peers and they blame their husbands rather than being there for him.

It is a recipe for destruction that, I believe, is intentional from, not the Church, but the powers-that-be in society.

The only solution to this? Break away from society. As Dr. McCoy would say to Capt. Kirk, "He's dead, Jim." You cannot graft good fruit on a diseased tree; so one must break away from the social programming as much as possible. Yes, you have to survive in the world but just as a person who has to work in the sewers you can wear the protective gear of Gospel principles to keep the feces that is today's society from penetrating.

[Crackers]

I do.

How many women could restrain their spending if they had lots of money? How many could restrain their eating if good food is all around.

I do too. Now that we have established that except for Elizabeth and I (we must be the only ones in the whole world!), all women are fat, sex-withholding, unworthy creatures, with no self-control, who are only interested in money…

Maybe we could address the issue of using that as an excuse to view porn and participate in other unmentionable activities because they somehow fall short of fornication. By the same reasoning, when I get mad at someone, I should consider cutting off one of their fingers, because that is definitely better than killing them, and it might be necessary in order to prevent me from killing them! What a great idea- go for the “lesser” though still terrible sin, because you have got to blow off some steam somehow!

Maybe this whole issue of which sin is worse wouldn't be an issue one would need to grapple with if one would focus on finding, creating, maintaining or repairing a meaningful partnership.

I do, three.

I felt like clapping for your answer Crackers!

What? Three of us? Un-be-liev-able!

[Serragon]

They are both sin and should be avoided. Isn't that enough?

[Craig Johnson]

It wasn't that long ago that some mothers sent their daughters to etiquette school to help them learn to be a good spouse. Or that would caution their daughter if she started gaining weight because she won't land a good husband if she lets' herself go. Who set good examples of service to their husband.

These days, even in church, I come across wicked women mocking and scorning their husbands. Women who will do laundry for the rest of the family and cook for the kids, but will indignantly say their husband can cook his own food and do his own laundry.

Marriage needs to be a two way street of service. Too many people have forgotten this. Yes, there are guys who do little to nothing for their spouse, but most men and women would acknowledge these guys are jerks. However, in today's world, guys who expect anything from their wife or don't give her everything are increasingly viewed as jerks, users, misogynists, etc. Some here have accused me of hating women, but that's not it at all. I hate this great wickedness and I feel contempt for people who adopt and encourage this wickedness.

My wife taught me early on that we were equals and if not then she was out of there. I complied. However, that didn't seem so equal! I love her attitude, because the level of devotion she has is rare. She is also always asking me if this is all right and is that all right even after I have assured her thousands of times to go ahead and make her own decision, I trust her and feel we are equals. Now, if I had more than one wife, I'm not sure if I could pull that off and I have given it a great deal of thought, my example would have to become exponentially improved and increased, I am not sure I am capable of that!

[brianj]

It wasn't that long ago that some mothers sent their daughters to etiquette school to help them learn to be a good spouse. Or that would caution their daughter if she started gaining weight because she won't land a good husband if she lets' herself go. Who set good examples of service to their husband.

That is true. In fact in the Bible there is a verse saying it is the duty of mothers to teach their daughters to love. Maybe it does not come naturally. There is also a verse about the virtuous wife.

I'm familiar with the description of the virtuous woman, whose price is far above rubies, described in Proverbs 31. But I'm not familiar with the verse saying mothers have a duty to teach daughters to love. Can you provide a reference?

[brianj]

My wife taught me early on that we were equals and if not then she was out of there. I complied. However, that didn't seem so equal! I love her attitude, because the level of devotion she has is rare. She is also always asking me if this is all right and is that all right even after I have assured her thousands of times to go ahead and make her own decision, I trust her and feel we are equals. Now, if I had more than one wife, I'm not sure if I could pull that off and I have given it a great deal of thought, my example would have to become exponentially improved and increased, I am not sure I am capable of that!

I'm sorry you have to put up with that because, no matter how you cut it we are not equal. Women have attributes about which they are superior to men and men have attributes about which they are superior to women.

The next time your wife wakes you up because she heard a noise and wants you to check it out, tell her: "No, you go check it out. We're equal." I'll bet she quickly works to redefine equality. Like the comedian Bill Burr says, "There are no feminists in a house fire, that's a guarantee. You can take the most hardcore feminist, some chick right in your face like 'you chauvinistic SOB,' those short little haircuts, the whole nine yards, right? The second those flames break out she's gonna twist those little hairs into pigtails, 'Oh, I'm just a girl! I wanna go play jump rope' and leave you standing in a burning house like you're not flammable!"

I've noticed equality is pretty unequal. Women who stay at home or work part time expect their man to work 50 or 60 hours per week to provide for her, take care of the cars, take care of the yard, and take care of the appliances and the house all by himself, but then also do half the house work because "we're equal." We are not equal. We are absolutely of equal worth but that doesn't make us equal. If we are equal then why does she need you to open jars?

[Fiannan]

It wasn't that long ago that some mothers sent their daughters to etiquette school to help them learn to be a good spouse. Or that would caution their daughter if she started gaining weight because she won't land a good husband if she lets' herself go. Who set good examples of service to their husband.

That is true. In fact in the Bible there is a verse saying it is the duty of mothers to teach their daughters to love. Maybe it does not come naturally. There is also a verse about the virtuous wife.

I'm familiar with the description of the virtuous woman, whose price is far above rubies, described in Proverbs 31. But I'm not familiar with the verse saying mothers have a duty to teach daughters to love. Can you provide a reference?

Titus 2

2 But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:

2 That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience.

3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;

4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

If the women in Relief Society are not teaching this dare I say they are as infidels?

[Craig Johnson]

My wife taught me early on that we were equals and if not then she was out of there. I complied. However, that didn't seem so equal! I love her attitude, because the level of devotion she has is rare. She is also always asking me if this is all right and is that all right even after I have assured her thousands of times to go ahead and make her own decision, I trust her and feel we are equals. Now, if I had more than one wife, I'm not sure if I could pull that off and I have given it a great deal of thought, my example would have to become exponentially improved and increased, I am not sure I am capable of that!

I'm sorry you have to put up with that because, no matter how you cut it we are not equal. Women have attributes about which they are superior to men and men have attributes about which they are superior to women.

The next time your wife wakes you up because she heard a noise and wants you to check it out, tell her: "No, you go check it out. We're equal." I'll bet she quickly works to redefine equality. Like the comedian Bill Burr says, "There are no feminists in a house fire, that's a guarantee. You can take the most hardcore feminist, some chick right in your face like 'you chauvinistic SOB,' those short little haircuts, the whole nine yards, right? The second those flames break out she's gonna twist those little hairs into pigtails, 'Oh, I'm just a girl! I wanna go play jump rope' and leave you standing in a burning house like you're not flammable!"

I've noticed equality is pretty unequal. Women who stay at home or work part time expect their man to work 50 or 60 hours per week to provide for her, take care of the cars, take care of the yard, and take care of the appliances and the house all by himself, but then also do half the house work because "we're equal." We are not equal. We are absolutely of equal worth but that doesn't make us equal. If we are equal then why does she need you to open jars?

You have got it totally wrong, clearly you don't know all women.

[brianj]

You have got it totally wrong, clearly you don't know all women.

Are you really going to claim that unless I come to know every single woman on the face of the Earth I am unqualified to make generalizations based on my observations? If so, here is another generalization for you to dispute: In the English language the letter 'e' is used most frequently, about 12.02% of the time. I make this claim without having taking the complete text of every work of poetry and prose written and tallied up letter frequency. But you know what? I took the entirety of this post, put it into an analyzer, and found that the letter 'e' was used roughly twelve percent of the time. In other words, the letter 'e' appears, on average, just under once every eight letters.

An introductory statistics class will show you how you can identify population wide trends with a fairly small sample size. At my university we had a total enrollment of about 10,000 when I was there. With a sample of just 73 students we were able to identify frequencies that were confirmed accurate with much larger samples.

[Craig Johnson]

You have got it totally wrong, clearly you don't know all women.

Are you really going to claim that unless I come to know every single woman on the face of the Earth I am unqualified to make generalizations based on my observations? If so, here is another generalization for you to dispute: In the English language the letter 'e' is used most frequently, about 12.02% of the time. I make this claim without having taking the complete text of every work of poetry and prose written and tallied up letter frequency. But you know what? I took the entirety of this post, put it into an analyzer, and found that the letter 'e' was used roughly twelve percent of the time. In other words, the letter 'e' appears, on average, just under once every eight letters.

An introductory statistics class will show you how you can identify population wide trends with a fairly small sample size. At my university we had a total enrollment of about 10,000 when I was there. With a sample of just 73 students we were able to identify frequencies that were confirmed accurate with much larger samples.

You have missed my point. You don't know my wife, she is nothing like the persons you describe. SInce you don't know my wife you must, obviously, not know all women.

[abijah]

I've noticed equality is pretty unequal. Women who stay at home or work part time expect their man to work 50 or 60 hours per week to provide for her, take care of the cars, take care of the yard, and take care of the appliances and the house all by himself, but then also do half the house work because "we're equal." We are not equal. We are absolutely of equal worth but that doesn't make us equal. If we are equal then why does she need you to open jars?

The modern fallacy of Equality...

[The Airbender]

To me growing up in the church it seemed that looking at pornography had the same stigma as actually having sex before marriage. I'm not condoning sin, but if your hormones and libido are running extremely high wouldn't it be a better alternative to look at porn and get the sexual tension out of your system, rather than going ahead and committing fornication with someone? I repeat, I know both are sins, but why are they lumped together as EQUALLY bad when one sin can save you from committing another worse sin.

I think you are looking at it from a completely different point of view than I am.

Of course, many people will scoff and scorn what I am about to say...

The very first promise to those who believe is that they will cast out devils and unclean spirits. I believe that most any addiction is fed by devils and unclean spirits. I believe there will be no solace until those have been dealt with. That has been the case in my life.

To answer your question the way you asked it, though. I agree with you. I would much rather my son click to a site and deal with it himself than run down the street and deal with it with the girl (who lives) on the corner.

I see your point and agree. But I think there is a whole 'nother side to it. In either case, we are attracting evil into our lives, which decreases our connection with the Lord. It is also much easier to give in to pornography than it is to find someone willing to play hanky panky. Or, at least, I thought it was. But maybe that's not the case anymore.