- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
In my New Year’s Resolution post from last weekend (Charity Thinketh No Evil: A Totally New Thought For Me), I wrote about a new thought that had never hit me previously. It was that: Quote:Perhaps, just as sound might not exist without the ability to hear, wickedness and immorality might not exist without the ability to harm.
In other words, perhaps “thinketh no evil” might be translated more clearly as “thinketh nothing that would harm others if actually done to them”
I want to focus today first on the concept of harm as it relates to thoughts, then turn to actual examples of thought types that constitute “thinking evil” as it relates to harm.
The first thing that jumps to mind is the need to reiterate that causing harm can be done both to others and to self. Thus, “thinking evil” can apply to thoughts that would harm others if put into action, but it also can apply to thoughts that would harm one’s self.
The most obvious danger in considering this line of thought is that establishing what constitutes “harm” is a subjective exercise.The clearest example of this for a blog focused on religion, spirituality and righteousness is the fact that thoughts about how to preach the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ as understood within the LDS Church would not be considered harmful in any way to a member of that church (or to many people who are members of other churches or religions) – but it would be considered of utmost harm by those who believe Mormons are destined for Hell. Thus, establishing exactly what constitutes harm to others and, therefore, thinking evil is, by nature, not an objective pursuit. That does not relieve me, however, of the need to attempt to consider the question. If, as Paul asserts, charity includes thinking no evil, then it is critical to attempt to understand what he meant by that statement – and, if harm is tied intrinsically into that prohibition, how to define harm is a central issue. I turn, therefore, to the dictionary again to start.
“Harm” is defined best for this discussion as:
Quote:injury; damage; injustice; violation; negative distortion; degradation; abuse
So, “thinking evil” would constitute actively considering ways to injure, do damage, cause injustice, violate, distort negatively, degrade or abuse.
As I contemplated these examples, the first thing that registered was something I had not considered in the context of charity – at least not that charity is the primary principle being “violated” by it. That thing is pornography. I do not want to go into explicit detail in this post, but I do want to explain why that issue came to mind immediately – with a careful distinction between nudity and pornography.
1) I am bothered almost as much by the idea that all nudity is pornography as I am by pornography itself– and the thought process that led me to consider pornographic thoughts as something that is counter to charity led me also to make the clear distinction I mentioned above. Nudity, in and of itself, is natural. It can be beautiful, although it certainly is not so in every instance. Most importantly for this discussion, however, there is nothing harmful (injurious or damaging) in simple nudity. It is what we do with nudity that makes it harmful – how we think about it with relation to others, particularly, that leads away from charity and toward harm.
2) Pornography can be defined to encompass various presentation methods, but I want to focus this post on the type of presentation method that is harmful in nature.There are obvious examples of physically harmful presentations, and thinking actively of them probably constitutes the worst violation of charity with regard to this issue, but I believe there are other areas where harm is both real and profound. As I have spoken with people who view pornography of various kinds, I have been struck by how much of what they view is degrading, abusive, injurious, damaging, etc. to their perception of the type of people who are the objects of the actions being portrayed.
In other words, many people start to view the people they see in pornographic presentations in the same way those people are portrayed therein.Objectification is the most insidious result I hear described. Thinking of these presentations literally advances objectification as an acceptable, natural practice – and objectification (the act of impersonalizing people in order to use them for a selfish purpose) is perhaps the worst example of harm that can be done to human beings. This is true especially if one considers humans to be children of God.
Removing that divine nature and creating mere things to be manipulated is the height of harm when viewed from a spiritual perspective.Some people might say that there is no harm done if the people involved are consenting adults, but that argument ignores completely the effect of internalizing some people as those who act and other people as those who are acted upon. It also ignores the central message of Paul’s focus on “thinking no evil” – in this case, not a presentation of nudity but a presentation of harmful practices and ideas and perspectives.
In summary, the key, it appears to me, with regard to this aspect of charity is that one’s thoughts remain free from those images that, if acted upon, would harm someone – whether someone else or one’s own self. Would those thoughts, if acted upon, cause harm in any way? Would they objectify in any way? Would they damage someone’s perception of herself or himself as a child of God – of someone of infinite worth? If I allowed myself to do so, I could think of images that would do so; I can think of many images, however, that would not do so – that would not be pornographic or evil in that way.
Frankly,
the inclusion of nudity, in and of itself, really has nothing to do with the difference between the two– and I believe, for this post, that is an important conclusion to make clear. I always think of the movie “Shindler’s List” when this topic and perspective comes up in conversation. The movie had some limited nudity in it, but wow … it certainly wasn’t pornography. Could the director have shot the movie without it? Possibly, but there truly is a psychological element to the horror of the Jewish concentration camp experience that was communicated through purposeful (artistic) use of nudity. Nudity is symbolic of being open and defenseless in a lot of ways, and also in this context, it portrayed being dehumanized and devalued. It certainly wasn’t of a “prurient nature” though. Old-Timer wrote:In summary, the key, it appears to me, with regard to this aspect of charity is that one’s thoughts remain free from those images that, if acted upon, would harm someone – whether someone else or one’s own self. Would those thoughts, if acted upon, cause harm in any way? Would they objectify in any way? Would they damage someone’s perception of herself or himself as a child of God – of someone of infinite worth? If I allowed myself to do so, I could think of images that would do so; I can think of many images, however, that would not do so – that would not be pornographic or evil in that way.
Frankly,
the inclusion of nudity, in and of itself, really has nothing to do with the difference between the two– and I believe, for this post, that is an important conclusion to make clear. Sorry if the brings up memories of the 300+ comments post on MM a year or so ago but as a mormon nudist/naturist I can testify that nudity and pornography are not even remotely close. Naturism is about body acceptance and seeing everyone as beautiful and unique and has nothing to do with the degradation and objectification you see in pornography. And interestingly it carries over in a positive way how a person views nudity in art, film, etc.. Pornography is about using someone. Nudity/naturism is about appreciating that we’re all individuals that in spite of not being air brushed, waxed, and toned deserve respect and appreciation for who we are.
Someone with whom I’ve sparred now and then over the last few years wrote the following comment on my personal blog in response to this post – since I cross-post these New Year’s Resolution posts from there to here: Quote:Papa D, your post reminded me of this warning:
“Young women, please understand that if you dress immodestly, you are magnifying this problem by becoming pornography to some of the men who see you.” (Dallin H. Oaks, “Pornography,” Ensign, May 2005, p.87.)
Are you also “bothered” by the idea that public immodesty is pornography?
My response was:
Quote:I am bothered by the way that the quote has been misinterpreted and misapplied by many members.
Elder Oaks never said that all young women who dress immodestly actually are pornography – and he never defined “immodestly” in that quote. What he said goes well with what I’ve said in this post – since he said they “become” pornography to SOME men who see them.
The DIRECT result of that wording is that those exact same young women do NOT “become pornography” to other men who see them.Recognizing that is absolutely critical to any discussion of this quote. Think about that for a moment, and I think you will see what I mean. Those young women are NOT pornography in and of themselves. SOME men who see them turn them into pornography due to how those men use the image they see. It can be argued that the young women “magnify this problem” – but
it CANNOT be argued, based on Elder Oaks’ own statement, that the problem lies in the young women. It is clear that the problem lies in SOME of the men who see them.Elder Oaks didn’t say otherwise – and just to be totally clear, Elder Oaks didn’t say that “public immodesty is pornography”. Those are your words, but it’s not what he actually said.
Frankly, for this forum, I will reiterate that I have NO problem with Elder Oaks’ actual quote – but I have a HUGE problem with how it is interpreted and applied by many members.
[
UPDATE: If anyone wants a good example of why I parse carefully, the ongoing exchange on my personal blog is instructive.( http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2010/07/charity-thinketh-no-evil-pornography-vs.html I am going to copy my latest comment on my personal blog, since there have been a few excellent comments since the original exchange. It is quite long: Quote:I really do understand that immodesty (especially public immodesty) is not desirable – and I do understand that it is harder in our current society of hyper-sexuality for immodesty to not “become pornography” for many people. However, there is an underlying principle of which I simply can’t let go.
I understand that Elder Oaks was talking primarily to the men in the talk that RG excerpted – so the sentence he used focuses on young women becoming pornography to SOME men who see them. As I said in earlier comments, I agree with what Elder Oaks actually said – bit it is the ways in which the quote is misused, imo, that bother me.
I simply believe we MUST distinguish between “pornography”, “modesty” and “nudity” – or we abandon an extremely important principle and lurch ever nearer harmful extremism.
Let me try to list some of the ways I believe Elder Oaks’ quote is misinterpreted and/or misapplied – and why those misuses bother me:
1) It is used exclusively to discuss immodesty as it relates to women. Men can be immodest, also – every bit as immodest as women.I have NEVER heard the quote in question applied to how young men might dress – and how young men can become pornography to some women who see them. That is a fundamental, simple truth – that anyone can dress immodestly and be seen as pornography by someone of the opposite sex (or even the same sex).
2) Elder Oaks never defined “immodestly” in his quote – and I grateful for that.I am concerned that more and more people, even in the LDS Church, are starting to draw stricter and stricter lines to define immodesty. I am sure the previous commenter does not advocate burkhas, since he mentioned the temple garment as a standard (one which I respect generally), but does that mean a man or woman shouldn’t wear a swimsuit that is more revealing than the garment? After all, the beach or pool is a public location. Should there be no modifications for public sporting events – like soccer, basketball, tennis or any other event for which shorts generally are worn above the knee? Should modesty be defined strictly on the basis of what we think will excite those who view us – and, if so, why is the strict Muslim standard not the best standard? After all, if someone might see a flash of ankle and turn it into pornography . . .
3) Perhaps most tellingly, pornography does not require nudity (OR EVEN IMMODESTY) to be pornographic for “some men (and women) who see” others.Some people can view beauty fully clothed and turn it into pornography. Again, if this is the case, why not impose burkhas for all men and women? Also, why not have different standards of modesty for different levels of physical beauty and appeal? Why not require physically attractive people to cover more of their bodies than those, like me, who will elicit pornographic thoughts from relatively few (if any) people?
4) Of the two problems addressed in Elder Oaks’ talk – immodesty and pornography, it is crystal clear to me that pornography is the more serious.Again, I am not saying immodesty is not a problem, but Elder Oaks identifies that particular problem as “magnifying” for SOME the deeper problem of pornography. Again, I turn to the example of fully clothed images twisted into pornography by some. I would rather see a little more skin than is commonly accepted to be proper than to be presented with a pornographic image of fully clothed, obvious modesty.
Modesty can “become pornography” through debasement – but pornography simply can’t be raised to a state of modesty.I think what it comes down to is fear and the need to control. The fear is that if something isn’t done there will be an uncontrolled slide to immorality caused by unrestrained and compulsive use of pornography and the need to control others to prevent them from harming themselves and others. The fear is interesting in the way it manifests itself. BYU deciding not to display Rodin’s “The Kiss” for fear of offending people and their sense of what is immoral. BYU art students in figure drawing not being able to draw undraped models. Today in branch presidency meeting the president trying to decide whether or not to post an announcement about the churches anti pornography web site on the bulletin board for fear it would arouse curiosity in youth who might see it. The control part is even more worrisome because it reaches into not only what you can or can’t wear but also listen to, read, and watch. And giving people the reason, “because I or the prophet said so”, just isn’t good enough. One of two things can happen and both are bad. One is that the person will see and R rated movie or see nudity, even non sexual, or wear a 2 piece swim suit, or get a second piercing and realize they didn’t get struck by lightning. The other is that they’ll feel so guilt ridden and shamed that either they’ll assume they’re beyond redemption or will go to their bishop and have their sense of guilt reinforced.
Old-Timer wrote:I simply believe we MUST distinguish between “pornography”, “modesty” and “nudity” – or we abandon an extremely important principle and lurch ever nearer harmful extremism.
The difficulty is that the people who need to appreciate the difference are adults/leaders and they want a standard that’s clear and unequivocal and kids that really aren’t able to make those judgments very easily. Demonizing and shaming haven’t and won’t work and trying to exercise control by using rules that seem artificial and changing won’t either. I’ve figured out the difference between pornography, modesty, and nudity for myself and do not feel shame or guilt for the choices I make based on those decisions. But unfortunately we belong to a church that though it likes to think teaches correct principles and allows self government is made up mostly of people that want rules and some leaders that are happy to enforce them.
Old-Timer wrote:1) I am bothered almost as much by the idea that all nudity is pornography as I am by pornography itself– and the thought process that led me to consider pornographic thoughts as something that is counter to charity led me also to make the clear distinction I mentioned above. Nudity, in and of itself, is natural. It can be beautiful…there is nothing harmful (injurious or damaging) in simple nudity…As I have spoken with people who view pornography of various kinds, I have been struck by how much of what they view is degrading, abusive, injurious, damaging, etc. to their perception of the type of people who are the objects…objectification is perhaps the worst example of harm that can be done to human beings.
this aspect of charity is that one’s thoughts remain free from those images that, if acted upon, would harm someone – whether someone else or one’s own self…Frankly, the inclusion of nudity, in and of itself, really has nothing to do with the difference between the two – and I believe, for this post, that is an important conclusion to make clear.
GBSmith wrote:…nudity and pornography are not even remotely close. Naturism is about body acceptance and seeing everyone as beautiful and unique and has nothing to do with the degradation and objectification you see in pornography…it carries over in a positive way how a person views nudity in art, film, etc…
If most nudity presented in magazines, movies, or HBO/Showtime TV series was truly innocent and not related to any pornographic intent then for one thing I would expect to see just as much male nudity too but it’s not even close. If they release an unrated version of some popular movie on video you can almost expect them to add extra footage of naked women that was cut from the original theatrical release.
It’s not even an “apples to apples” comparison because the rules are completely different based on gender. For example, a man without a shirt is not even considered nudity but a topless woman will often earn an automatic R-rating and yet in spite of the restricted audience moviemakers still feel like they need to have naked women in their films.
On the other hand, they needed to edit out male nudity from “Fast Times at Ridgemont High” just to get an R rating. Why? I guess the assumption is that no one really wants to see that or at least not enough people want to see it to make it the norm. Even in a TV show for general audiences like Baywatch it seemed like the men always had Polo shirts and fairly long shorts on but for some reason the women almost always had to have skimpy form-fitting swimsuits on and nothing else. There is almost always some blatant “objectification” of women going on in the media with or without clothes on; that’s just the way it is.
As far as trying to separate nudity and pornography I think the real answer is simply that most porn is not really as terrible as many Mormons like to assume so it doesn’t really matter if some nudity is porn or not in many cases because either way no real harm is done by it. Like I said in the other thread as far as I’m concerned any supposed highbrow distinction between art and porn is mostly imaginary and an attempt to justify gratuitous and unnecessary nudity while avoiding the stigma and negative connotations of the porn label. In reality pornography is actually a legitimate subset of art and one of the most lucrative and popular art forms there is no matter how despised and demonized it is by moral crusaders.
I agree totally that there is a double standard based on gender in these discussions. It’s the most fundamental issue I have with the way people generally talk about and act with regard to nudity. At least the last GC talk on pronography mentioned explicitly that it’s not just a male issue – even though broadening it won’t make DA happy. 😆 Also, while I understand that my own follow-up comments don’t support what I’m about to say, I’d prefer that this thread focus on the idea that perhaps “thinketh no evil” means “wisheth no harm” and/or “thinketh nothing that would harm” – and I will repent and follow my own request now.
😳 I have wondered how many nudists have joined the church (there must be some) or how many LDS have become naturists. Some small churches have argued that our attitude to nudity is in fact a result of Adam and Eve’s sin (remember, it was only a “Bad” thing for them after they sinned)
I mentioned “The Mission” as a film worth seeing on this board. However, I realized it contained some native nudity. The thing is though, it never really crossed my mind until someone mentioned it. It’s incidental and natural in the film, not remotely erotic or offensive, it’s just what the tribes in that part of the world did… wear little clothes until the mission reached them.
SamBee wrote:I have wondered how many nudists have joined the church (there must be some) or how many LDS have become naturists.
There was a post with over 300 comments a year or so ago on MM about this with some very interesting comments by LDS persons that are nudists. In addition there are 2 web sites,
http://www.ldssdc.org andhttp://www.ldssdc.info that you might find interesting. It’s certainly made a difference for me in the way I view people and this whole issue Ray has raised.Interesting, these two quotes stuck out for me… Quote:“Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.”
(Titus 1: 15)
“Shame about the human body, its parts and purposes, is justified only when a person uses it for carnal purposes. Teach your children that they will find joy in their bodies when they use them virtuously after the manner taught by Christ.”
(A Parent’s Guide, p. 37, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)
This is it perhaps. One man looks at a clothed woman and lusts after her, but in other circumstances, another man regularly sees naked/topless women (because of his culture or tribe) and thinks nothing of it.
Pornography is bad, nudity is not. I think it is as simple as that. If you have trouble separating the two I would argue it is from some indoctrination you have received to combine the two. I don’t think the division is always completely obvious though. Don’t even get into pornography vs art!!!
Thanks for the scripture reference and the quote, Sam. I’m going to post them on my blog for the discussion going on there. This reminds me of a story I heard about Pres. McKay. In the late 40s or early 50s he was the grand marshall at a 4th of July parade in Provo. Someone complained to him about some girls in swimsuits on the floats and his response was something to the effect that he didn’t see anything that wasn’t beautiful. Evidently that ended the discussion.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.