"Pornography Offends the Holy Ghost"

[Skwim]

A video: What Should I Do When I See Pornography?

A production of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
​

"Just as there are dangers in the ocean There are dangers in the world... One of those dangers is pornography."

"Pornography means bad pictures of people with little or no clothes on."

​

So, what do you think of the video?


.

 

[Enoch07]

The video is obviously about helping parents with their children that possibly viewed pornography.

Which I think any sane person would agree children should not be viewing porn.

Though in today's world porn is too easily accessible on the net. So the chances of children viewing porn on the net is high.

The video is to help parents to help their children process that information in a positive way by communication vs a negative way via physical or verbal punishment.

 

[Twilight Hue]

ROFLMAO!!

All that pent-up sexual energy and nowhere to go........

Anyways, what their target audience anyways? They say it's not made for children, yet they're showing preteens talking about the subject for which the film is not made for. Weird.

Heavenly father apparently has a problem. Maybe they could pray to Heavenly Father to have the hormone factory shut off until they are a proper age so they don't end up in a full-blown orgy with each other making Heavenly Father sad.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The video is obviously about helping parents with their children that possibly viewed pornography.

Which I think any sane person would agree children should not be viewing porn.

Though in today's world porn is too easily accessible on the net. So the chances of children viewing porn on the net is high.

The video is to help parents to help their children process that information in a positive way by communication vs a negative way via physical or verbal punishment.

I say you could blame the parents themselves for creating, or probably more accurately exasperating those desires by vilifying the body.

 

[Skwim]

.

The video is obviously about helping parents with their children that possibly viewed pornography.

Hmmm, not so sure.

The video is to help parents to help their children process that information in a positive way by communication vs a negative way via physical or verbal punishment.

Although the video is directed toward the child audience.

Anyways, what their target audience anyways? They say it's not made for children, yet they're showing preteens talking about the subject for which the film is not made for. Weird.

I agree. It is a strange presentation

In the beginning the video announces: "This video is provided to assist them [the parents] in that sacred purpose." that "sacred purpose" being their "primary responsibility for teaching and protecting their children."

So it would appear it's designed for parents. It then emphatically says "and is not for group instruction of children," Which I take to mean it's to be used for one's own children, or maybe one or two other children at a time.

However, considering that its presentation is directed at children---the dialog always addresses the child viewer---I'm not sure what it's up to. Are both parent and child suppose to watch it together? It doesn't say so, which I would think would be an important instructional point.

ALSO, it assumes the viewing child knows what pornography is. What constitutes "bad pictures of people with little or no clothes on." Although children are far more sexually aware these day than they were years ago, I wouldn't take it for granted all are aware of the varieties of pornographic activities. And, I'm pretty sure this isn't an area of education the Mormons would even consider touching, which is why they skirt around it by using the silly term, "bad pictures." Seems to me Mormon adults have more of a problem with their timidness, and self-conscious reticence than their children might have with any perceived untoward effects of "bad pictures."

.

 

[Enoch07]

I say you could blame the parents themselves for creating, or probably more accurately exasperating those desires by vilifying the body.

It's not vilifying the body. It's vilifying underage consumption of pornography. Which is valid.

Although the video is directed toward the child audience.

Read the disclaimer at the start of the video. The video is made for parents to use as a reference to help their children who might have questions etc.

 

[Skwim]

Read the disclaimer at the start of the video. The video is made for parents to use as a reference to help their children who might have questions etc.

But it's still directed at children. Carefully watch the video and take note of who the actors are talking to. If you have any doubts, watch what's said from about the 3:30 point and beyond, and ask yourself who the kids are addressing.

.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not vilifying the body. It's vilifying underage consumption of pornography. Which is valid.



Read the disclaimer at the start of the video. The video is made for parents to use as a reference to help their children who might have questions etc.

Then why is it made as if it were for children?

I might even categorize using children in this way as a form of child abuse.

 

[Enoch07]

Carefully watch the video and take note of who the actors are talking to.

Let's be objective on this instead of subjective shall we? Here is the screenshot of the disclaimer.

The video is made for the parents to help them discuss this issue with their children the video is not made directly for the children to consume.

 

[Enoch07]

Then why is it made as if it were for children?

I might even categorize using children in this way as a form of child abuse.

See post #9.

 

[Skwim]

Let's be objective on this instead of subjective shall we? Here is the screenshot of the disclaimer.
The video is made for the parents to help them discuss this issue with their children the video is not made directly for the children to consume.

Okay, so you don't want to watch it. Can't tie you down and make you. As I said:

"If you have any doubts, watch what's said from about the 3:30 point and beyond, and ask yourself who the kids are addressing. "

.

 

[Enoch07]

Okay, so you don't want to watch it. Can't tie you down and make you. As I said:

"If you have any doubts, watch what's said from about the 3:30 point and beyond, and ask yourself who the narration is addressing. "

.

I watched it. It's made the way it is to be non-threatening for the parents to watch.

Anyone who is a parent and has tackled the topic of sex with their teenager (between 14-17 usually) understands. It can be intimidating for a lot of folks.

I had to have it with my daughter when she was 16 (3 years ago) because she asked if she could go to the doctor and get birth control pills. I asked her if she just wanted it to help with her skin issues, or if she was thinking about having sex. She was honest and said it was for both reasons. So we had a talk about safe sex practices, and got her birth control pills and condoms. I am turning 40 on Monday, I ain't ready to be a Grandpa just yet.

But this video is for helping parents with younger children 10-13 roughly. Deal with pornography should they come across it. I see nothing wrong with the message. It could use a bit of tweaking if I had ant say about it, but overall I approve.

 

[Subduction Zone]

See post #9.

That was not an answer to my question. Actions at times speak louder than words.

 

[Enoch07]

That was not an answer to my question. Actions at times speak louder than words.

Disclaimers speak louder for those that know how to read.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Disclaimers speak louder for those that know how to read.

Disclaimers are worthless when the video indicates that adults were not the target group.

When the person putting up a "No Smoking" sign is smoking and keeps smoking in the area afterwards how seriously do you take the sign?

 

[Enoch07]

Disclaimers are worthless when the video indicates that adults were not the target group.

When the person putting up a "No Smoking" sign is smoking and keeps smoking in the area afterwards how seriously do you take the sign?

That's a rather non-sequitur comparison.

The disclaimer is there for a reason. Here I'll post it again.

See how clearly it states that the parents have the primary responsibility for teaching their children?

See how clearly it states that the video is to provide assistance to the parents to teach their children?

See how clearly it states it is not for the instruction of children?

Again the video was made that it was, to be non-threatening for the parents. Because having a talk about sex is intimidating for a lot of parents. It's something only a parent would understand.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I had to vote wholly alarmist. Especially when bearing in mind that an all-seeing, all-knowing deity presumably knows when all people have relations and with whom. Disliking porn seems like a rather petty distinction, no?

 

[Enoch07]

I had to vote wholly alarmist. Especially when bearing in mind that an all-seeing, all-knowing deity presumably knows when all people have relations and with whom. Disliking porn seems like a rather petty distinction, no?

So you would allow your 5-13 year old child access to porn then?

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

A video: What Should I Do When I See Pornography?

A production of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
​

"Just as there are dangers in the ocean There are dangers in the world... One of those dangers is pornography."

"Pornography means bad pictures of people with little or no clothes on."

​

So, what do you think of the video?


.

I have to say it was an excellent video.

I can’t see how it offends the Holy Ghost, but the lessons in the video were well presented for the audience.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Wait, that girl is WAY too young for earrings.

"Pornography means bad pictures of people with little or no clothes on."

Um? I've seen LOTS of National Geographic magazines and watched LOTS of documentaries about usually naked people. That's NOT pornography.

Also, God made us naked and we are not to tell Him something is unclean when He made it, so ....

I see attraction is only for a white hetero couple.

You know what will get some people off without STD issues? Porn. I don't do it myself, but I get the attraction.

"Mommy, I saw evil pictures of a penis!"
"Dear, that is your biology textbook. It's SUPPOSED to be there."
"Mommy, learning about my body is of the devil!"
"I'm not seeing you on the internet posting stupid crap like 'can I get pregnant by sitting on the toilet'. Get educated."

Plus, I love the fact the boy who turns to his parents downstairs after seeing porn sits on the armrest. Women weren't supposed to ride bikes or ride horses like men because they thought it was ... stimulating.

Jesus loves you. No matter what. As long as you can't label a vagina on a diagram.

I mean, seriously, the real issue with porn is consent and objectification/exploitation and this video doesn't care about ANY of that at all. It's just "body parts ... ewwww." It's like when I brought my students (4th graders) a Leap Frog and there was a science booklet for it and the youngest students saw the anatomy one (it wasn't THAT graphic) and was like "Ms of the Phoenix! Those are NAAAAASSTY!"