Roper wrote:

---

Cat's request for keeping things gospel-centered got me thinking about the applicability of a gospel definition.  If we base our definition strictly on the teaching of  Jesus, "But I say unto you that whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her hath commited adultery already in his heart" (Matt 5:28, 3N 12:28), then the definition is subjective and limited in applicability.  For example:  A man with a foot fetish sees a woman trying on shoes in JC Penny, becomes aroused, takes home a sales flyer, and engages in sexual fantasy.  Gospel definition--porn.  Community definition--not porn.  A gay man sees part of a video of a nude sorority party and is not aroused (or even interested) in the least.  Gospel definition--not porn. Community definition--porn. I think that's what Justice Stewart was driving at--the difficulty of definition.  We've seen that on this very thread.

The good thing about the gospel definition is that if one's reaction is to immediately turn away and discipline one's thoughts, the ambush porn doesn't really count.

---

You know, at first glance, that sounds good...

But, there was something about that statement that just didn't quite sit right.   So I thought about it overnight, and this morning while waiting on my daughter at Seminary, it came to me what exactly did not sit right.

There is one standard given by the gospel which is applicable to all people.  Not a dozen or more different interpretations of whether it is applicable to a person in a given circumstance.  It doesn't matter if one finds an image enticing or stimulating or not.

When it comes to modesty in thought, action, and dress, there is one standard that applies as far as The Lord is concerned.

Just as there is one standard when it comes to observance of any precept of the gospel, be it chastity, tithing, Word of Wisdom, Sabbath day observance, sustaining The Lord's annointed, forgiving others, repenting, magnifying our callings, being of good cheer, or helping others.  And those are just a few "for examples".

One is either keeping the standard, or one is not.  There is no middle ground.

Now, going back to the thoughts expressed that nudity in painting or sculpture or art is not equivalent to pornography... okay, that is an argument.  Pornography is a term that is indeed defined by the contemporary society.  I'm sure that the ancient Romans did not think there was anything pornographic about the great deal of phallic ornamentation that adorned some of their cities in abundance, nor did the ancient Phoenicians with their topless priestesses and their snake worship...

But, if public nudity is so innocuous and is merely art because the human form is a thing of beauty and is afterall one of God's creations, why is it that we don't find paintings or sculptures of half-clothed or nude people in our chapels, temples, or other LDS buildings (aside from perhaps the occasional painting on display in the Harris Fine Arts Center at BYU)?  Because the Lord has a set standard for modesty.

Cat Herder wrote:

---

There is one standard given by the gospel which is applicable to all people.  Not a dozen or more different interpretations of whether it is applicable to a person in a given circumstance.  It doesn't matter if one finds an image enticing or stimulating or not.

When it comes to modesty in thought, action, and dress, there is one standard that applies as far as The Lord is concerned.

Just as there is one standard when it comes to observance of any precept of the gospel, be it chastity, tithing, Word of Wisdom, Sabbath day observance, sustaining The Lord's annointed, forgiving others, repenting, magnifying our callings, being of good cheer, or helping others.  And those are just a few "for examples".

One is either keeping the standard, or one is not.  There is no middle ground.

---

I bolded the particular areas I wanted to address while keeping them in context.

There is however, personal revelation about how to live those standards. That might mean that different people are given different things they need to do to be living those standards. I feel like it would be a mistake to assume that because I need to not do X to be keeping the sabbath holy, that I could say that everyone needs to not do X.

It seems to have been that way from the beginning as soon as Adam and Eve learned they were naked and The Father instructed them in said topic of clothing for covering their nakedness.

Did they realize their nakedness themselves or did it have to be pointed out to them by Satan?

-- Edited by TitusTodd at 09:35, 2007-10-17

TitusTodd wrote:

---

It seems to have been that way from the beginning as soon as Adam and Eve learned they were naked and The Father instructed them in said topic of clothing for covering their nakedness.

Did they realize their nakedness themselves or did it have to be pointed out to them by Satan?

-- Edited by TitusTodd at 09:35, 2007-10-17

---

Does it matter?  Does it matter that for at least several months after they were cast out of the Garden, they were the only two humans on the Earth?

Once they understood they were naked, they became subject to standard.

rayb wrote:

---

 Also, It's been mentioned in these twin threads, the futility of scripture study, and prayer in overcoming addiction, but that's been precisely the opposite of my experience.


Sometimes we make alot of excuses for our bad behavior.

---

Regarding my comments in these threads about the "fulitity of scripture study and prayer in overcoming addiction" I would like to clarify.

Prayer and scripture study becomes an essential part of my recovery as I am ready to progress towards them. An addict will use those tools incorrectly or as an excuse to "wish away" problems instead of dealing with them. I need to be honest and clean the crap out of my head before I can use those tools properly.

My point about stating that if one tries and fails (repeatedly) to overcome a compulsion using prayer & scriptures was that means one is an addict. It was not to imply that those tools aren't good and neccessary. An addict simply cannot use them properly.

As I see it, overcoming temptations and weaknesses by using prayer and scripture study is a great idea. And if it works for you without a 12-step program then I wouldn't call what you overcame an addiction. (Which is not to discount the difficulties anyone faces, or say that others' struggles are not as real.)

As an addict I'm really great with excuses for my bad behavior. As a recovering addict, I'm beginning to look more honestly at my actions.


P.S. I've been to a lot of 12-step meetings now and there has been prayer at every last one of them.

-- Edited by hiccups at 10:26, 2007-10-17

That did not make sense hiccups...

Because in effect, it sounds as if you are implying that anyone who stumbles, falls, gets up, moves forward, stumbles, falls, gets up, moves forward (continue the cycle) and is not using a 12-step program is an addict to whatever they are struggling with.

Which pretty much implies everyone, regardless of the sin, temptation, or transgression is therefore an addict and must treat themselves and be treated as such.

-- Edited by Cat Herder at 10:29, 2007-10-17

Hic, I appreciate your thoughts about your experiences with addiction and recovery. :)

Btw, I don't believe my last statement. I think that's what Satan tells people. I think it's possible to go through the motions of reading and getting on your knees, but never truly studying the scriptures or really praying... of seeking out God's will... but honestly I cannot bring myself to believe that when done right, one cannot replace an addiction with the true source of all light.

Of course scripture study won't work if at some level you don't believe it will work. But of course you're right about the excuse thing... if we knew from the beginning, what would heal us if we just thought that scripture study would do it, bang-presto, then we could just do as we liked, and then apply scripture study and everything would be fixed... but the chains of the devil are real... but they're real because we gave him that power over us... and what dispels that darkness other than the Word of God?

Maybe it's a misapplication of the scripture, but I keep thinking of the Book of Mormon's counsel regarding Moses raising the bronze serpent when the fiery serpents bit the people... 

(Alma 33 - )
 19 Behold, he was spoken of by Moses; yea, and behold a type was raised up in the wilderness, that whosoever would look upon it might live. And many did look and live.

:wonders why Cat can get away with "Might I suggest a review..." and "...written so that 12 year olds can understand it..." while methinks I'd be pointed to Rule #5:

Jen: And I agree with that idea.

--Ray

PS> I am frustrated with the sentiment, "My bishop told me to study and pray, and it doesn't work."

-- Edited by rayb at 10:56, 2007-10-17

Ok, maybe my attempt at clarifying was not clear.

Cat, I will say this, way more people are addicts than admit to it. There is more to defining addiction than just that cycle and I was building on what I stated on the other thread. I could type for days about what addiction is, but I do not have the time, energy, or inclination. Especially when it's been stated so much better here:  http://www.aa.org/bigbookonline/ I highly recommend this book.

About that cycle, though, here's a quote from Albert Einstein, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." Doing that type of "insane" behavior long enough can cause a person misery and wreak havoc on their lives if they are an addict.

-- Edited by hiccups at 10:58, 2007-10-17

Well, hick, I'm just glad you're here. I don't mean to contend with you (though I'll challenge anyone if it means we'll have a good discussion. :) ) I just believe in Christ. I don't pretend to know all the ways to Him, but I do know that He is the source of all healing.

And I know that many of Satan's chains are forged from incomplete and imperfect understandings of Christ and of ourselves...

Love ya, --Ray

I've kind of stayed away from this thread, but have perused it every now and then. Is it just me or has this thread been pretty much derailed?

I believe in Christ, too, Ray. I believe that He can fix in me what I cannot. I believe that I need to learn to let him.

And with that, I'll stop derailing.

Jen wrote:

---

:wonders when Cat Herder will come in and chastise rayb for comments that "don't help":

---

Most people know rayb is only trying to stir the pot.  I am sorry that you felt you were chastised...

Cocobeem wrote:

---

:wonders why Cat can get away with "Might I suggest a review..." and "...written so that 12 year olds can understand it..." while methinks I'd be pointed to Rule #5:

---

I was referencing the document's attributes, not anyone here.  In suggesting a review of the document, that applies to everyone.  It is good stuff and though geared to them, it is not just meant for the youth and their advisors alone.


Ladies, if you have a problem with the fact I put on the moderator's hat in that other thread by asking what I did of you, then avail yourself of the moderation review process.  I stated my reason for the request when I made the request.

Folks, in the effort to keep LDS Discussions threads on topic and gospel related, I may start exercising the power to close threads that stray to only tangential discussions of the original post's intent or that are derailed completely into something that becomes non-edifying.  I don't want to do that, but the option is there.  So please, try and keep the conversations here edifying.

I may start exercising the power to close threads that stray to only tangential discussions of the original post's intent

1. I can't find a written rule on this. Is derailment a moderate-albe offense? I'd really like to know, so as to avoid breaking that rule in the future.
2. I agree that derailment is rude at times, but
3. I don't think this is a derailment, so much as a natural continuation/evolution of the conversation. Perhaps whomever is bothered could start a new thread, or ask someone else to?

Folks, in the effort to keep LDS Discussions threads on topic and gospel related, I may start exercising the power to close threads that stray to only tangential discussions of the original post's intent or that are derailed completely into something that becomes non-edifying.  I don't want to do that, but the option is there.  So please, try and keep the conversations here edifying.

Wait, are you saying that no derails are allowed at all?  Or just in this LDS discussion area?  Or just on this thread?  Please point me in the right direction where it says that in the charter or rules or whatever. 

I, personally, haven't seen that much of a derailment--just discussing if nudity = porn.  I think that is a worthy discussion and not necessarily something needs to have it's own thread.

Good point, Ponch, in my mind, I had combined the two threads into this one, cuz it's easier to post to one ongoing thread, than to continually check two... and talk in parallel...

--Ray

3 years ago I was substituting for a 5. grade teacher, and we were reading the story "Number The Stars" that week.  To enhance the kid's understanding of the events described in the story, I brought in a video that included about a minute or so of scenes from Denmark I wanted to show, where the story is set.  I showed the clip 3-4 times so I could explain what I know of the country and events at the time in 1943, and on the last run I got drawn away from the VCR controller by a behaviour matter, and the video rolled into the next scenes, which were from one of the beaches in Denmark.     

Late to the thread.... I hope it's not too late to continue this aspect of the discussion.

A ways back, Ray said

I think it's possible to go through the motions of reading and getting on your knees, but never truly studying the scriptures or really praying... of seeking out God's will... but honestly I cannot bring myself to believe that when done right, one cannot replace an addiction with the true source of all light.

Of course scripture study won't work if at some level you don't believe it will work...
He then referenced Alma 33:19-21

21 O my brethren, if ye could be healed by merely casting about your eyes that ye might be healed, would ye not behold quickly, or would ye rather harden your hearts in unbelief, and be slothful, that ye would not cast about your eyes, that ye might perish?

If. If ye could be healed by merely praying or reading scriptures, wouldn't you do it? That sounds a heck of a lot easier than putting forth the effort to go through 12-step programs. I think merely casting my eyes about and expecting to be healed is a very attractive alternative to actually doing something. Unfortunately, it has never worked for me.

What would you say to someone who did believe that sincere prayer and scripture study would take away their desire to look at porn, and so they prayed mightily over many weeks, and never missed a day of scriptures, and yet still struggled and sometimes failed in resisting the temptation? Would you tell them that if only they had more faith, they would be healed of this soul-scourge?

I think the key is in your phrase: "I cannot bring myself to believe that when done right, one cannot replace an addiction with the true source of all light."

If it can't be done right because of messed up thinking and beliefs, then maybe some people need some help in changing the way they think before prayer and scriptures can be applied the right way to help them heal.


-- Edited by bokbadok at 23:56, 2007-10-17

There are people that tend to think that if I just pray "harder" or study "more" or become "more" diligent, I can overcome anything by simply living the gospel. But really living it... taking it up a notch, if you get the idea.

I guess that also means there are people that may think of embracing 12-step programs or counselling as a failure on their part - I wasn't "good enough" and I'm failing, because the Great Physician could not cure me. So they are not willing to do the "lesser" things, like 12-steps or counselling - the things the world has to offer.

Yeah, I remember that one. There's a flood and people repeatedly try to rescue him and he replies, "No, thanks! The Lord will save me!" or something along those lines...

Sometimes I think that shoe fits me.

rayb wrote:

---

Are you saying that you don't believe the scriptures can lead a man out of addiction?

---

As a general understanding, I don't believe scriptures alone will lead anyone out of addiction.  I won't deny that there may be exceptions--there may be cases where someone has overcome addiction exclusively through scripture study.  My understanding is that scriptures are an essential part of a more comprehensive intervention and recovery.

So are you saying that if people just had enough faith, they could be healed by reading their scriptures? I believe if God told them that was the case (as in looking to the staff) that it would be so. But are you saying that, every single time, if a person just believed hard enough and read their scriptures, that they'd be healed?