Mormon Porn Use Maybe Not As High as Previously Reported

[Just_A_Guy]

Story here.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I can't get the link to work.

[Awakened]

Yep, link's broken. The forum did that to me as well once. You need to edit your post, click the toggle switch on the top left corner of the tool bar in the post box and that will give you the raw message. Then go to where the broken URL is and fix it.

[MrShorty]

Is it this data that you are talking about?

 

http://virtuoussociety.com/2014/04/16/rethinking-mormons-and-porn-utah-40th-in-us-in-new-porn-data/

 

Edited to add this warning: For those like MOE below who may need/want an appropriate warning, the above link is clean. There are apparently links on the above page that, while still clean, do point to a prominent pornographer's website, who is the original source of the data. If there are any concerns with having a known pornography domain show up in your history, be careful what links you follow from the above site.

[jerome1232]

Looks like a heck-of-a-lot more thought out study. I never did take the original at face value, it had problems. It's comforting to know that the gospels message appears to be being heeded, or at least there is effort to heed it.

[Just_A_Guy]

@ MrShorty - that's it; thanks.

[MarginOfError]

While we're tossing out the notion of Utah's porn use*, can we also toss out the statistic that claims that 40% of US men are addicted to pornography?

 

I might follow the links to play with this data as well.  

 

What I would really like to do is conduct a series of in person interviews among men and women in the Church using random-response methods to try and nail down better what the true proportion of mormon pornography use is.  Maybe I should approach my stake president about this sometime.

 

 

 

* and for the record, a lot of the bloggernacle sources I've read when discussing the earlier porn use record were quite vocal about the fact that it reported on paid subscriptions and not on consumption.  

[MarginOfError]

Something else to note: if you want to look at the analysis, the link he says goes to a site without graphic content is still on the pornography vendor's domain.  I'm going to have fun explaining that one to my system's group.

[The Folk Prophet]

When I first read the thread title I read it as The use of 'Mormon porn' is lower than previously reported.

[MarginOfError]

As with the original study, this study doesn't say what the author seems to want it to say.  The study starts with total number of page views by state, and then divides that by the population to get the number of page views per capita.  The thing that we really need to know is how many unique viewers there were per state.

 

The reason this is important is it speaks to the form of pornography consumption.  If a state has a narrow base of heavy consumers, their overall consumption will look similar to a state with a wide base of light consumers.  

 

There are some other flaws that I might try to look into.  For instance, the views per capita should be calculated over the adult population (or maybe over 16?).  In any case, it seems unlikely that the under 10 crowd is contributing a whole lot to a state's overall pornography consumption.

 

Other factors that aren't considered are the number of married adults, the birth rate, and broadband availability (all of which may speak to opportunity loss).

 

In the end, the two studies are evaluating completely different metrics.  The 2009 study is evaluating the prevalence of pornography use (using paid subscriptions from one provider as the data), and this new study is evaluating the volume of pornography use.  The simple truth is this: they could both be right.

[dahlia]

Is porn some big deal in Utah? For the life of me, I don't understand the Church's focus on pornography. I even spoke to my son, who 'talks' to people on a bunch of sites, including 'how to be a man' sites (who knew?) and asked if this topic comes up a lot. He doesn't see it as a hot topic when men are talking to each other. I'm in a field where people are quite vocal about their private perversions, and I don't see this as a problem people are dealing with.

 

What I do see, and what we've discussed in RS, is the almost soft porn status of some commercials. The stuff that comes into your house while you're minding your business watching TV is mind blowing. I don't know how parents with school-aged kids deal with it. The normalization of sexual activity amongst teens and unmarrieds in TV shows and commercials is way more concerning on a day to day level than pornography.

 

btw - I don't call looking at porn a few times out of curiousity a problem or addiction, tho I suspect some LDS would be shocked and freaked out if they found out their teen had done that.

[jerome1232]

Is porn some big deal in Utah? For the life of me, I don't understand the Church's focus on pornography. I even spoke to my son, who 'talks' to people on a bunch of sites, including 'how to be a man' sites (who knew?) and asked if this topic comes up a lot. He doesn't see it as a hot topic when men are talking to each other. I'm in a field where people are quite vocal about their private perversions, and I don't see this as a problem people are dealing with.

 

What I do see, and what we've discussed in RS, is the almost soft porn status of some commercials. The stuff that comes into your house while you're minding your business watching TV is mind blowing. I don't know how parents with school-aged kids deal with it. The normalization of sexual activity amongst teens and unmarrieds in TV shows and commercials is way more concerning on a day to day level than pornography.

 

btw - I don't call looking at porn a few times out of curiousity a problem or addiction, tho I suspect some LDS would be shocked and freaked out if they found out their teen had done that.

Considering the porn industry rakes in more than the top tech companies combined and something like 12% or more of the web is dedicated to it. Yeah, it's a major problem, everywhere.

[slamjet]

Since I'm in the trenches with porn addicts, I can tell you, it's an issue in the church.  I don't have numbers but I know it may be a serious problem when my Stake dedicates one of the High Councilman to specifically deal with this issue.  Besides, you have to realize porn addiction isn't about sexual gratification, it's about control, or lack of it, of something in a person's life or self.  I'm not talking about the "gee, look at this" kind of thing, I'm talking about "hon, why don't you turn that thing off, it's 3 in the morning" type of thing.

[Quin]

Is porn some big deal in Utah? For the life of me, I don't understand the Church's focus on pornography. I even spoke to my son, who 'talks' to people on a bunch of sites, including 'how to be a man' sites (who knew?) and asked if this topic comes up a lot. He doesn't see it as a hot topic when men are talking to each other. I'm in a field where people are quite vocal about their private perversions, and I don't see this as a problem people are dealing with.

 

What I do see, and what we've discussed in RS, is the almost soft porn status of some commercials. The stuff that comes into your house while you're minding your business watching TV is mind blowing. I don't know how parents with school-aged kids deal with it. The normalization of sexual activity amongst teens and unmarrieds in TV shows and commercials is way more concerning on a day to day level than pornography.

 

btw - I don't call looking at porn a few times out of curiousity a problem or addiction, tho I suspect some LDS would be shocked and freaked out if they found out their teen had done that.

Ditto.

Including time spent in the military.

I suspect it's more the taboo nature that makes it seem like a much bigger problem than it is.

Like pop-illnesses. SARS, Avian Flu, H1N1, etc. cause most people to FREAK out, even derailing their lives for days/weeks/months agonizing over it... The media launches circuses... It's just a huge huge huge deal for people... Emotionally. But these pop-illnesses tend to kill 12, 40, 150 people. Which is NOTHING compared to all the illnesses we don't even blink at. The cold & flu kill apx 35,000 - 50,000 in the US alone, per year. (Can't get link to work...CDC.gov has the stats). As do most of the others, we blithely walk around terror-free from. Mortality and morbidity stats in the tens of thousands. Or even higher.

People don't blink at the cold/flu... But freak at illness that kills 12 people. Not because they're a huge problem, but because of the novelty.

Non-LDS don't blink at porn & MB... But LDS-culture freaks, I posit, again because of the novelty.

It's not something we're used to as a culture, as it's proscribed... So we make mountains out of molehills.

Q

[The Folk Prophet]

Non-LDS don't blink at porn & MB... But LDS-culture freaks, I posit, again because of the novelty.

It's not something we're used to as a culture, as it's proscribed... So we make mountains out of molehills.

 

Are you kidding me? Porn is only a big deal because we're not used to it?

 

It is a sin. It is a major deal. It is a major problem. Just because the rest of the world doesn't consider it a problem is irrelevant. A sin is a sin and it is NOT relative. Morality is NOT relative. God sets the standards for what we should and should not "freak" at, not the world.

[MrShorty]

Are you kidding me? Porn is only a big deal because we're not used to it?

 

It is a sin. It is a major deal. It is a major problem. Just because the rest of the world doesn't consider it a problem is irrelevant. A sin is a sin and it is NOT relative. Morality is NOT relative. God sets the standards for what we should and should not "freak" at, not the world.

 

Maybe it depends on what we mean by "freak at." If it means "respond irrationally to", I think Quinn makes a good point. Religiously, we believe God wants us to completely abstain from porn, so we respond irrationally  to someone who uses even a small amount.

 

In some ways, I think it is similar to our attitudes toward alcohol. We believe God asks us to abstain 100% from liquor, but the world preaches a "drink responsibly" philosophy. Sometimes our 100% abstinent turns into an irrational "anyone who has a glass of wine/beer with dinner is a drunken alcoholic".

 

I don't know that it is about condoning or not condoning sin. In some ways I see it as an aspect of "Godly sorrow" that leads to true repentance rather than unhealthy shame and ostracization that may not lead to repentance.

[The Folk Prophet]

Maybe it depends on what we mean by "freak at." If it means "respond irrationally to", I think Quinn makes a good point. Religiously, we believe God wants us to completely abstain from porn, so we respond irrationally  to someone who uses even a small amount.

 

In some ways, I think it is similar to our attitudes toward alcohol. We believe God asks us to abstain 100% from liquor, but the world preaches a "drink responsibly" philosophy. Sometimes our 100% abstinent turns into an irrational "anyone who has a glass of wine/beer with dinner is a drunken alcoholic".

 

I don't know that it is about condoning or not condoning sin. In some ways I see it as an aspect of "Godly sorrow" that leads to true repentance rather than unhealthy shame and ostracization that may not lead to repentance.

 

Well, "freak" was her word, of course. What I'm taking exception to is a concept. Specifically:

 

"Non-LDS don't blink at porn & MB... But LDS-culture freaks, I posit, again because of the novelty."

 

The implication being that we, also, shouldn't blink at porn and MB? Or that we somehow shouldn't take them as seriously as we do. As if the the only reason we have to be highly concerned with people looking at porn is because it's a novelty for us. I don't think so.

 

Moreover, the whole idea that shame is unhealthy and that removing shame would somehow fix the problems is misguided. If a person has involved themselves in something shameful they should feel shame. Taking away the shame of it is not going to help people feel "godly sorrow". They're not mutually exclusive one to another. And removing the shame is more likely to enable the negative behavior than to help them feel "godly sorrow".

 

Anyhow, what are you saying godly sorrow is that shame is not? Disappointing one's parents is not a valid motivation, but disappointing God is?

 

The church and it's members have no responsibility to alleviate people's feelings of guilt for sin. The leaders of the church will continue to warn against the dangers of sin, as they should, and we should support and sustain them in this, as well as warning others just as adamantly.

 

Ultimately, my contention, is that her post implied that the member's response to such things is freaking, or, as you put it, responding irrationally, and I highly disagree. These things are so incredibly dangerous to our souls that, if anything, people are not responding intently enough to their severity.

 

What does qualify as a viable thing to freak at? Someone sticking their hand in the fire? A kid running out into traffic? Someone playing with a loaded gun? Are people's souls less valuable to us than their safety and their lives?

 

We freak because we care.

[MrShorty]

I'm not sure I fully understand Godly sorrow. Alma describes it as guilt/shame/"trouble which shall bring you down to repentance." (Alma 42:29) This suggests to me that it also possible to feel guilt/shame/sorrow for sin that does not lead to repentance (one example in Mormon 2:13). Alma implies that some of this is the choice of the sinner in responding to their guilt. I'm not sure I fully understand the responsibility of the Church and its members in this process, but it seems to me that our goal should be promoting the kind of sorrow/guilt/shame that leads to repentance. When we find that our dialog seems to be promoting depression, resignation, or anything other than genuine repentance, maybe we have a responsibility to consider our dialog and see if we need a different approach (or a library of different approaches until we find what will work for a specific individual) that will promote repentance.

[The Folk Prophet]

I'm not sure I fully understand Godly sorrow. Alma describes it as guilt/shame/"trouble which shall bring you down to repentance." (Alma 42:29) This suggests to me that it also possible to feel guilt/shame/sorrow for sin that does not lead to repentance (one example in Mormon 2:13). Alma implies that some of this is the choice of the sinner in responding to their guilt. I'm not sure I fully understand the responsibility of the Church and its members in this process, but it seems to me that our goal should be promoting the kind of sorrow/guilt/shame that leads to repentance. When we find that our dialog seems to be promoting depression, resignation, or anything other than genuine repentance, maybe we have a responsibility to consider our dialog and see if we need a different approach (or a library of different approaches until we find what will work for a specific individual) that will promote repentance.

 

It's a good thought, but it's also presuming something that I do not believe to be universally true -- that is, that the church and it's members dialog is promoting some sort of sweeping depression, resignation, etc... Satan, of course, would promote such a response to any of God's principles and words, no matter how they are spoken. So I agree with the principle you've stated, but I do not agree that the church and it's members attitude towards the dangers of pornography and the like are prompting some sort of mass depression across its membership. But even if such a blanket depression existed, I would look to Satan's principles as the culprit rather than God and the church's.

 

To me the culture of "don't feel shame", "you're not to blame", "it's not that big of a deal", "the church is overreacting", etc., etc., is more likely to influence these negative responses in people than the truth -- that sin is, in actuality, a big deal. These sorts of statements teach people that the church is oppressive to them, and thereby encourages depressive ideologies. Whereas the church teaches the only true means to joy -- which is repentance and faith on Jesus Christ.

[Quin]

Well, "freak" was her word, of course. What I'm taking exception to is a concept. Specifically:

 

"Non-LDS don't blink at porn & MB... But LDS-culture freaks, I posit, again because of the novelty."

 

The implication being that we, also, shouldn't blink at porn and MB? Or that we somehow shouldn't take them as seriously as we do. As if the the only reason we have to be highly concerned with people looking at porn is because it's a novelty for us. I don't think so.

 

Moreover, the whole idea that shame is unhealthy and that removing shame would somehow fix the problems is misguided. If a person has involved themselves in something shameful they should feel shame. Taking away the shame of it is not going to help people feel "godly sorrow". They're not mutually exclusive one to another. And removing the shame is more likely to enable the negative behavior than to help them feel "godly sorrow".

 

Anyhow, what are you saying godly sorrow is that shame is not? Disappointing one's parents is not a valid motivation, but disappointing God is?

 

The church and it's members have no responsibility to alleviate people's feelings of guilt for sin. The leaders of the church will continue to warn against the dangers of sin, as they should, and we should support and sustain them in this, as well as warning others just as adamantly.

 

Ultimately, my contention, is that her post implied that the member's response to such things is freaking, or, as you put it, responding irrationally, and I highly disagree. These things are so incredibly dangerous to our souls that, if anything, people are not responding intently enough to their severity.

 

What does qualify as a viable thing to freak at? Someone sticking their hand in the fire? A kid running out into traffic? Someone playing with a loaded gun? Are people's souls less valuable to us than their safety and their lives?

 

We freak because we care.

You're reading waaaaaay too much into what I said.

And running with it.

I'm not saying that porn isn't a sin, or isn't a big deal, or isn't addictive, or anything else.

I'm saying that non-LDS peep spends 10 seconds looking at porn, and completely forgets about it.

It's done. 10 seconds of their life.

LDS peep spends 10 seconds looking at porn, and hours agonizing about it. Praying about it. Over the next several weeks and months they spend countless hours talking to people about it, debating whether to tell their bishop, or their spouse. Blogging about it. Asking q's online about it. Lookin into pornography addiction treatment centers. Confessing to their bishop. Confessing to their spouse. Going into marriage counseling. Researching the roles of neurotransmitters, women's roles throughout history, visual stimulus, cardinal sins, horror stories, stories of triumph, support groups, retreats, ad naseam. Begging HF on a daily, and even hourly basis to forgive them. Writhing.

THATS what I'm talking about freaking out.

Do all members do that? Of course not.

Do we all know people who have, do, & will?

Yep.

As well as the people who will freak out for a few days or a week, and move on.

STILL a lot longer than 10 seconds.

10 seconds vs hours, days, weeks, months, years even for many.

NOTHING about the intrinsic nature of porn.

NOTHING about people struggling with real addiction.

NOTHING about revelation, policy, faith, etc.

EVERYTHING about the different reactions between A-Group & B-Group.

And their reaction to something dangerous & familiar, vs dangerous & unfamiliar.

That simple.

Known v unknown.

I picked pop-illness to show the parallel.

I could have shown car bombs (and how people who live in cultures where car bombs are common, their reactions are non-plussed & they go about their lives like normal... But in cultures where they're not common, a single explosion will derail an entire culture, for weeks/months/annual rememberance ceremonies, "where were you when Kennedy was assassinated" level of awareness, etc.)

So the NUMBERS are disproportionate.

In cultures where a thing is rare, novel, uncommon... It makes a MUCH bigger splash.

I'm not saying porn, deadly illnesses, or car bombs are two thumbs up.

Much less that we should just do away with epidemiology & doctors, police & counterterrorism, or all of the other stuff you're attributing to me in regards to porn or my faith, beliefs, or intent.

Q

[The Folk Prophet]

You're reading waaaaaay too much into what I said.

And running with it.

I'm not saying that porn isn't a sin, or isn't a big deal, or isn't addictive, or anything else.

I'm saying that non-LDS peep spends 10 seconds looking at porn, and completely forgets about it.

It's done. 10 seconds of their life.

LDS peep spends 10 seconds looking at porn, and hours agonizing about it. Praying about it. Over the next several weeks and months they spend countless hours talking to people about it, debating whether to tell their bishop, or their spouse. Blogging about it. Asking q's online about it. Lookin into pornography addiction treatment centers. Confessing to their bishop. Confessing to their spouse. Going into marriage counseling. Researching the roles of neurotransmitters, women's roles throughout history, visual stimulus, cardinal sins, horror stories, stories of triumph, support groups, retreats, ad naseam. Begging HF on a daily, and even hourly basis to forgive them. Writhing.

THATS what I'm talking about freaking out.

Do all members do that? Of course not.

Do we all know people who have, do, & will?

Yep.

As well as the people who will freak out for a few days or a week, and move on.

STILL a lot longer than 10 seconds.

10 seconds vs hours, days, weeks, months, years even for many.

NOTHING about the intrinsic nature of porn.

NOTHING about people struggling with real addiction.

NOTHING about revelation, policy, faith, etc.

EVERYTHING about the different reactions between A-Group & B-Group.

And their reaction to something dangerous & familiar, vs dangerous & unfamiliar.

That simple.

Known v unknown.

I picked pop-illness to show the parallel.

I could have shown car bombs (and how people who live in cultures where car bombs are common, their reactions are non-plussed & they go about their lives like normal... But in cultures where they're not common, a single explosion will derail an entire culture, for weeks/months/annual rememberance ceremonies, "where were you when Kennedy was assassinated" level of awareness, etc.)

So the NUMBERS are disproportionate.

In cultures where a thing is rare, novel, uncommon... It makes a MUCH bigger splash.

I'm not saying porn, deadly illnesses, or car bombs are two thumbs up.

Much less that we should just do away with epidemiology & doctors, police & counterterrorism, or all of the other stuff you're attributing to me in regards to porn or my faith, beliefs, or intent.

Q

 

I can confess reading stuff into what you said. I think your original comment implied such, whether you meant it to or not. I do not think the church culture is making mountains out of molehills. Do some? Sure. As I said to MrShorty, exceptions do not define criteria for the rule. Someone responding irrationally to the LDS culture does not make the LDS culture mistaken, it makes the person(s) responding irrationally mistaken. Anyone treating the viewing of porn as if they went on a murderous rampage is overreacting to something beyond what they should. However, anyone viewing porn, even for 10 seconds, as if there is nothing to blink an eye at is also mistaken.

 

So...fair enough. I read into your comments. I read into it an accusation of LDS culture that I felt was unfair. If you did not mean to accuse, I apologize to you personally, but still feel justified in "running with it", as you say, because the clarification, if nothing else, was appropriate.  That being said, the "Are you kidding me" tone was probably less than ideal either way.

[SpiritDragon]

You're reading waaaaaay too much into what I said.

And running with it.

I'm not saying that porn isn't a sin, or isn't a big deal, or isn't addictive, or anything else.

I'm saying that non-LDS peep spends 10 seconds looking at porn, and completely forgets about it.

It's done. 10 seconds of their life.

LDS peep spends 10 seconds looking at porn, and hours agonizing about it. Praying about it. Over the next several weeks and months they spend countless hours talking to people about it, debating whether to tell their bishop, or their spouse. Blogging about it. Asking q's online about it. Lookin into pornography addiction treatment centers. Confessing to their bishop. Confessing to their spouse. Going into marriage counseling. Researching the roles of neurotransmitters, women's roles throughout history, visual stimulus, cardinal sins, horror stories, stories of triumph, support groups, retreats, ad naseam. Begging HF on a daily, and even hourly basis to forgive them. Writhing.

THATS what I'm talking about freaking out.

Do all members do that? Of course not.

Do we all know people who have, do, & will?

Yep.

As well as the people who will freak out for a few days or a week, and move on.

STILL a lot longer than 10 seconds.

10 seconds vs hours, days, weeks, months, years even for many.

NOTHING about the intrinsic nature of porn.

NOTHING about people struggling with real addiction.

NOTHING about revelation, policy, faith, etc.

EVERYTHING about the different reactions between A-Group & B-Group.

And their reaction to something dangerous & familiar, vs dangerous & unfamiliar.

That simple.

Known v unknown.

I picked pop-illness to show the parallel.

I could have shown car bombs (and how people who live in cultures where car bombs are common, their reactions are non-plussed & they go about their lives like normal... But in cultures where they're not common, a single explosion will derail an entire culture, for weeks/months/annual rememberance ceremonies, "where were you when Kennedy was assassinated" level of awareness, etc.)

So the NUMBERS are disproportionate.

In cultures where a thing is rare, novel, uncommon... It makes a MUCH bigger splash.

I'm not saying porn, deadly illnesses, or car bombs are two thumbs up.

Much less that we should just do away with epidemiology & doctors, police & counterterrorism, or all of the other stuff you're attributing to me in regards to porn or my faith, beliefs, or intent.

Q

 

Perhaps I still miss the point of what you're trying to say here.

 

Are you suggesting it is better if we just move on after sinning as if nothing happened? I agree it is a problem when someone agonizes over sin endlessly, because when the atoning power of Christ heals them it is the end of it, but if the agony is not ceasing this can be a good impetus to seek out the atoning healing.

 

Outside of the church people haven't made covenants of obedience and are less accountable, so moving on for them is more of an option, but even then if they choose to be baptized they will need to confront this.

[MarginOfError]

I think the point Quin is trying to convey is that the LDS cultural response to pornography is disproportionate to the offense.  How many people times have we heard people say that they would consider leaving their spouse if they found him or her viewing pornography?  

 

The LDS culture tends to conflate viewing pornography with pornography addiction with sexual addiction.  What Quin has said is true.  There are countless men outside of the LDS culture who view pornography, perhaps even regularly, and they are able to function normally in society and have normal, healthy, marital relationships.  That doesn't mean it's "right" or "ok" to view pornography.  But LDS culture has talked this up so much that there are many that feel that any level of consumption is an imminent danger to the eternal salvation of the consumer.  

 

A healthier dialog would be one that slamjet has already referred to.  It's about control, or loss of control.  We need to understand why people consume pornography.  More often than not, it has very little to do with sex, and more to do with addiction and coping with stress.  Placing such high stakes on the game--such as fear of a spouse leaving, or fear of an impossible path to repentance--is often counterproductive to the healing of people that are in need of it.

 

At least that's what I saw in Quin's response.  Perhaps it's because I don't subscribe to the LDS dialog surrounding pornography.

[The Folk Prophet]

I think the point Quin is trying to convey is that the LDS cultural response to pornography is disproportionate to the offense.

 

Yes. that was my take on her point. And I adamantly disagree.

 

 

There are countless men outside of the LDS culture who view pornography, perhaps even regularly, and they are able to function normally in society and have normal, healthy, marital relationships. 

 

Normal is defined by what is common. But healthy? I think that's a stretch.

 

More often than not, it has very little to do with sex, and more to do with addiction and coping with stress.

 

I do not believe that for a second.

 

Placing such high stakes on the game--such as fear of a spouse leaving, or fear of an impossible path to repentance--is often counterproductive to the healing of people that are in need of it.

 

What is counterproductive to healing is anyone not turning to Christ. Beyond that, to claim that a wife should "ho-hum" their husband's (and within the church, Priesthood holder's) use of pornography does not help.

 

I simply do not buy the, stop-treating-sin-like-it's-a-big-deal-and-everything-will-improve approach.

 

An LDS temple-married husband's use of pornography is a betrayal of his marriage and priesthood covenants. It is a VERY big deal.

 

As to your point, however, I also believe that any wife who threatened to leave their husband over such an issue is in jeopardy of betraying her marriage covenants as well. So, yeah...some overreact. That is not what the church teaches or what anyone should be taking away from the church's teachings on pornography. I have never heard anyone preach that a wife should divorce their husband over pornography. Anyone who is taking that away is misguided as well. And anyone preaching that should be severely reprimanded and corrected.

[Finrock]

Whether it be porn or any other sin my view is that we, as members, ought to be less judgmental and more inclined to show sympathy and compassion towards those who are living in sin. Why? Because, believe it or not, every single one of us are living in sin and do we not all beg for mercy, compassion, and acceptance from Heavenly Father? And if we are not begging, do we not at least hope, wish, and wonder if Heavenly Father has mercy and compassion for us?

 

There is a tendency, not universal of course, but a strong tendency in my experience in life for members of the Church to essentially kick the sinner/addict when they are down because they believe they are more righteous than the filthy, perverted porn addict (alcoholic, etc.). I see people in my Ward who are struggling with addictions and I know that in most cases these individuals already feel like crap. They already think they are worthless. They already feel like they aren't worthy to be with members of the Church. So, they don't come to church. They don't participate. They are more inclined to stay away. In some cases their feelings are not justified but in many cases they are because members can and do judge them. What these people need are not overreactions and people preaching to them how horrible they are or how horrendous their actions are (they already know or feel that). What they need is to feel compassion. To know that they are loved and accepted, despite their sins. This is what I want the people I know in my ward who are struggling with addictions to know. I want them to know that its okay to have weaknesses and still come to church. That is what church is for. It is for the weak and the wicked. Come and be with us. We love you. We want you to be healed. Come get strength from joining with those who are struggling just like you are, albeit with maybe different sins and different trials, but we are still relying on the Atonement of Jesus Christ and are begging for mercy like you. I may have a testimony of the gospel and I know the atonement is real but I don't have everything figured out.

 

-Finrock