General Conference Discussion

For the discussion of spirituality -- from LDS and non-LDS sources
User avatar
Euhemerus
Posts: 322
Joined: 14 Oct 2009, 15:56

Re: General Conference Discussion

Post by Euhemerus » 06 Apr 2010, 06:32

hawkgrrrl wrote:I don't necessarily think he was talking to strong TBMs who left so much as weak TBMs who left, and they are probably the majority of people who leave for this kind of reason. Either that or the term "strong TBM" is an oxymoron (another distinct possibility that occurs to me). The more firmly we hold onto something intangible, perhaps the less grasp we can have of it. And anti-Mormon lit is persuasive (even though many of its arguments have as many loopholes as they point out in the claims of the church) to those who have undeveloped criticial thinking skills. I used to enjoy poking holes in the various anti-Mormon brochures that came my way when I was a teen growing up in PA (these somehow pop up everywhere - especially in the areas of the church restoration sites), most of which were a transparent attempt of a minister to protect his flock and thereby his livelihood.
Ah, good point hawk! I think you're right on!
Don't believe everything you think
- bumper sticker I saw one day

User avatar
SamBee
Posts: 5539
Joined: 14 Mar 2010, 04:55

Re: General Conference Discussion

Post by SamBee » 06 Apr 2010, 09:46

hawkgrrrl wrote:Mme Curie - I'd check on my porn stat of 25%. I don't have the source - it's basically hearsay from other porn discussion elsewhere in the b'nacle. My guess is that some is couples-porn, but I don't know (apparently more couples frequent strip joints than previously also, another social change in the making). Also, I think porn's something that even when viewed as a couple doesn't necessarily stay that way. My biggest objection to porn is supporting an exploitative industry.
I find it believable. Women are beginning to do a lot more of the things men do, and not just the positive ones. It often tends to be the men who drag the women off to these things... but then again, groupings of women get into it.

Women are constantly being told by the media to become promiscuous, bisexual* etc. I suppose a lot of it makes profit for companies (someone who needs to get new lovers all the time maybe buys more make up/perfume than a wife) and also benefits men in a bizarre way. And then, as those women age, they can be sold anti-ageing products. Other than the puritanical reaction, is it really good to promote the idea everyone has to have a perfect body, even if they don't? (Similar things can be said about male grooming products - they're there to inspire a kind of paranoia in men.) And if they do end up with a good body it's unlikely it will last more than twenty years.

Although the question here, is, what constitutes porn to the LDS? I'm not talking about the obvious stuff here. Some music videos pretty much verge on soft porn, but don't involve nudity in the strict sense. Some people seem to think any kind of film a child wouldn't be let in to see is bad.

* I tend to see the bisexuality that is being promoted as something with a cynical end, rather than as an internalised sexuality, if that makes any sense.
DASH1730 "An Area Authority...[was] asked...who...would go to the Telestial kingdom. His answer: "murderers, adulterers and a lot of surprised Mormons!"'
1ST PRES 1978 "[LDS] believe...there is truth in many religions and philosophies...good and great religious leaders... have raised the spiritual, moral, and ethical awareness of their people. When we speak of The [LDS] as the only true church...it is...authorized to administer the ordinances...by Jesus Christ... we do not mean... it is the only teacher of truth."

Post Reply