SDB’s vs. Addictions

[Anonymous]

amateurparent wrote:

There is a long history of the church being over focused on sexuality.

Not long ago I commented to my stake president that there were more word of wisdom problems among my ward’s youth than chastity problems. His question back to me was “what about pornography?” I was hoping for “that’s awful how can I help?” I also commented that there are far fewer lessons to youth about WofW than chastity. I looked at the Come Follow Me manuals and found the following topics:

Young Men Manual Come Follow Me –

Topics about chastity:

Why is chastity important?

What are church standards regarding dating?

How can I resist pornography?

Why should I treat my body like a temple? (chastity mentioned, no WofW).

How does worthiness affect priesthood power? (chastity mentioned, no WofW).

Topics about Word of Wisdom:

Why does the Lord want me to be healthy?

Young Women Manual Come Follow Me –

Topics about chastity:

Why is Chastity important?

What are church standards regarding dating?

How do I guard my virtue?

Topics about Word of Wisdom:

Why does the Lord want me to be healthy?

I feel that addictive substances are at least as problematic for today’s youth as unhealthy sexual practices. I see the church teaching more about chastity when in my view they should be equal or maybe even weighted towards WofW.

[Anonymous]

I agree, RR, that there are more WoW problems among our older youth than there are chastity problems in my ward. There are 5 at least semi-active priest age YM in my ward. All but one of them has WoW issues. I can’t fully address chastity because I don’t know each of their relationships with their girl friends, but I do know most of them don’t have girl friends. I also can’t address porn fully, but would wager all of them have at least viewed some porn. I won’t say that any of them are addicted to alcohol or marijuana, nor will I say any of them are addicted to porn. However, they can’t answer yes to the question either way (although it could be argued that simply having looked at porn is not a violation of the LoC and having had one or two drinks is not a violation of the WoW).

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

You are dead wrong with that comment, DA, ime. Dead wrong…Yes, we have major issues with how we handle things of a sexual nature, but there is no acceptance of any of those other destructive behaviors among the leadership. Illegal drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, online gaming habits and addictions, abuse of prescription medicines, etc. all are condemned – and three of them are included in the baptismal and temple recommend questions…We understand you think porn is fine and dandy and over-emphasized, but that is different than saying nothing else is seen as sin…If anything, we are too good at condemnation and shame and too bad at understanding, compassion, grace, mercy, support, etc.

I’m not saying Church leaders accept any addictions or unhealthy compulsive behaviors much less anything regarded as a sin in the Church; my point is simply that I haven’t heard Church leaders and members freaking out about any other supposed danger or threat half as much as viewing porn/nudity in recent years. For example, I have never once heard about compulsive overeating, hoarding, online gaming, shopping, etc. in Church lessons or conference talks but I can’t count the number of times they have condemned porn over and over again. Basically it seems like the Church has singled out porn as public enemy number one in a way that is completely out of proportion compared to other possible problems they could focus on instead based on the average results in real life.

And to be honest I actually think it is easier for a significant number of Church members to get away with viewing porn/nudity, not strictly obeying the Law of Chasity, and/or not paying tithing without being completely weeded out than disobeying the WoW. So in that sense the WoW is still treated as very important in the Church but like I said before I think that actually helps explain why they don’t talk about it as much as porn because they probably think most active adult members already don’t do that anyway but porn is still seen as a problem that supposedly needs special attention. I see the abuse of prescription drugs as something that Church leaders would think is already incldued in the WoW but some Church members will rationalize and tell themselves it’s not a “sin” mostly because it’s not alcohol, tobacco, coffee, or tea. Some of the teachings I remember recently about the WoW sounded like they were mostly directed toward the youth or single adults along the lines of resisting peer pressure but it still seems like a secondary concern compared to porn.

[Anonymous]

amateurparent wrote:

DevlsAdvocate:

I agree with every point you made…There is a long history of the church being over focused on sexuality…Polygamy .. Polyandry .. All the official statements that it didn’t exist. Then, the statements that it did exist. The fight to keep polygamy .. The fight to end polygamy. The fight against birth control. The acceptance of birth control. The change of dress standards in the 1970’s when BYU homecoming queens no longer wore strapless gowns. The stronger focus on dress standards in the 1980s .. That every girl of any age should always wear clothes that would allow temple garments. The push against cable TV and MTV in the 1980s. The 2000s focus on the evils of porn and MB…MB and porn is easy to measure. It became an easy target.

This is a good point; personally I would call it a puritanical obsession with trying to control and limit sexuality and cover women’s bodies. Here in Utah they will typically cover popular women’s magazines in stores so all you can see is the title because there are apparently too many people that will be offended if they see much skin or even form-fitting clothing. This is one area where it seems like many Church members are actually becoming even more uptight than they used to be.

[Anonymous]

Roadrunner wrote:

How do I guard my virtue?

I was going to respond to this YW manual reference but felt that it was a tangent in an already crowded thread. I will post a new topic on this.

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

This is a good point; personally I would call it a puritanical obsession with trying to control and limit sexuality and cover women’s bodies. Here in Utah they will typically cover popular women’s magazines in stores so all you can see is the title because there are apparently too many people that will be offended if they see much skin or even form-fitting clothing. This is one area where it seems like many Church members are actually becoming even more uptight than they used to be.

I’m glad i’m not the only one who sees this happening.

EDIT: I want to qualify this–its about balance. When you introduce puritanical obsessions, you can cloud issues and even injure people. BKP would call this “over-inoculation”–like when the message is so strong, so forceful, it actually pushes the ideal further than it should be. An example would be a woman or man who will not uncover themselves ever, even when appropriate with their spouse or a medical doctor.

[Anonymous]

DA, I agree with your follow-up response to my comment. Well said (due to better, more precise wording).

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

So I ask myself, if M might be acceptable to help get through periods of a few months without my wife then why was it such a taboo in the first 25 years without my wife?

I really do appreciate any effort to help people with self-defeating behaviors (perhaps the inability to stick to a budget might be included in this) and/or addictions. On the other hand – if we are labeling normal sexual development an addiction/SDB then we can be causing pain and anguish were it needn’t exist.

One of the best articles that I have seen on this subject was discussed in the following thread: http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=6664&hilit=best+article+porn

I was thinking about this last night and had a bit of a breakthrough. It has to do with the concept of being an adult of God. There was a time in my youth and young adult years that the sexual standards of the church were helpful. As patronizing and infantilizing as they are sometimes, there was a time in my hormone flooded youth that such rules and guilt might have helped me to avoid some destructive choices (hooking up, teen pregnancy, STD’s, objectification of women, etc. etc.) I was a child of God then and the training wheels served a purpose.

Now I am an adult of God with more ability to reason and probably less flooded with hormones. I am now better able to make deliberate thoughtful decisions that take into consideration multiple stakeholders.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

Roy wrote:

So I ask myself, if M might be acceptable to help get through periods of a few months without my wife then why was it such a taboo in the first 25 years without my wife?

I really do appreciate any effort to help people with self-defeating behaviors (perhaps the inability to stick to a budget might be included in this) and/or addictions. On the other hand – if we are labeling normal sexual development an addiction/SDB then we can be causing pain and anguish were it needn’t exist.

One of the best articles that I have seen on this subject was discussed in the following thread: http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=6664&hilit=best+article+porn

I was thinking about this last night and had a bit of a breakthrough. It has to do with the concept of being an adult of God. There was a time in my youth and young adult years that the sexual standards of the church were helpful. As patronizing and infantilizing as they are sometimes, there was a time in my hormone flooded youth that such rules and guilt might have helped me to avoid some destructive choices (hooking up, teen pregnancy, STD’s, objectification of women, etc. etc.) I was a child of God then and the training wheels served a purpose.

Now I am an adult of God with more ability to reason and probably less flooded with hormones. I am now better able to make deliberate thoughtful decisions that take into consideration multiple stakeholders.

Interesting quote Roy. The disparity in the church is monumental on this particular topic. Some bishops/SP ask direct questions during worthiness interview: “When was the last time you masturbated?” I’ve sat in 3 interviews where this question was directly asked of me, and it has and is currently being asked of others. If you answer in ways that are not acceptable, you will be counseled, told to stop taking the sacrament, and your recommend (if you have one) may be taken UNTIL you are completely over this problem. That is how it is seen in those stakes.

Other stakes do NOT ask this.

On this site, many would say they would simply not tell the SP/bishop if asked this question. And, then you get into the whole discussion about lies and or hiding or whatever.

I am making NO judgement call in this in any way….it is just interesting to me because there is such diversity and variability in this topic depending on where you live and who is in charge at the time. The church has a fixation on sexuality, and what they classify or don’t as sinful.

[Anonymous]

I get this Rob4Hope. Sometimes the message is sent that the same standards that are designated for the youth apply equally to the adults as well. As an adult going through the TR process and not being counseled for worthiness issues, I would be shocked if I was asked “When was the last time you (insert act here).” Sorry – just not appropriate for this leader to go off on a personal witch hunt.

As I was preparing to take out my endowments for missionary service and then again before my temple sealing, I would probably have endured any question to get a TR. The threat of public disappointment/humiliation at that point was too great. Not so now.

But my specific point is that married consenting adults can largely make choices about their intimacy together without the supervision of the church – Whereas some church guidance about these issues may be appropriate and somewhat helpful for unmarried youth and young adults.

[Anonymous]

Roy…I understand and agree.

I do think it is inappropriate for some questions. I think the direct “M” one is wrong to ask adult males,…and frankly, if my son were in the bishops office, I would be uncomfortable with him asking my son that question directly as well.

I think there needs to be more: “Teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves”.

[Author]

Posts