"Pornography Offends the Holy Ghost"

[Mock Turtle]

There is far too much pornography about. I mean, in olden days a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking, now heaven knows, anything goes.

Children should not be viewing stuff that gives the wrong impression about nudity and/or sex, and they should have a healthy relationship to both when the time comes, and the children shown are not of this age. I am of the generation where naked breasts were just about all that was seen in nude images, can remember when they got more explicit in the 1970s mainly, and have viewed enough material since to know what is available now. We have gone berserk with pornography in my view, and no doubt in the future it will be seen as such.

Few good things come from such explicit material. As to the video, well, I view religious indoctrination being just as bad - affecting young minds when they are not really capable of taking in and/or questioning such things - but that is another matter. I rated the video as somewhat misleading.

 

[james bond]

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 thought it helped both parents and children themselves who can't discuss sex with parents. One of the most difficult things in life for parents to discuss sex with their children. Then there is the one funny uncle who let's you see porn and discuss it the way you want.

One of the dangers of pornography is changes to expectations and thinking you want what you don't have. Probably, adults shouldn't be viewing too much porn either. Instructional video seems okay.

Have to agree about porn on the net being too easily accessible.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

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.

Yes, exactly. It's simply using children, as their peers, to present the message. Sometimes listening to peers, in this case children, has a greater impact than listening to adults.

 

[james bond]

That's what I kind of figured.


As I've pointed out, it makes no attempt whatsoever to even tell the kids what qualifies as pornography and what doesn't. There's a huge difference between a film showing nudists playing volleyball, swimming, and lying in the sun; and films showing two naked people engaged in mutual fellatio and cunnilingus. Yet it wants kids to believe that any pictures of people with little or no clothes on are not only "bad pictures," but dangerous pictures. Moreover it doesn't bother to even hint at what the danger may consist of. "Will I go blind if I look at pictures of people with little or no clothes on? Will I go to hell?" Then there's psychological manipulation that pornography should give one bad feelings: "These kinds of pictures give you a bad feeling." The implication being that if they don't then something's wrong with you. It also advises the kids to talk to their parents or a trusted adult, but it never says why or about what. Here's a subject so embarrassing that even adults are afraid to explain it in a video, yet you shouldn't be at all embarrassed at having watched it. Just walk down stairs and talk about it. "Hey mom, I just saw a video of this guy putting his penis into the mouth of this girl really far and she didn't even gag. How did she do that? Boy, I gag if I even swallow a piece of candy wrong.. . . . . . . . . .Hey mom! . . . .MOM!. . . . . MOM! wake up!!"

As for being well put together, the smarmy, one-minute introduction of innocent playful children is better suited for per-kindegartners rather than pre-teenagers. The production has the earmarks of Blushing Old Maid Pictures Incorporated. If you can't tell kids what you're talking about and why, then perhaps you're not the one to even try.

.

Strange. You get this from one short video produced by Mormons?

Yet, you put it in terms of qualifying it as porn, going blind or to hell, deep throat and smarmy. Maybe it's your post that is smarmy.

Definition of smarmy
smarmier; smarmiest
1 : revealing or marked by a smug, ingratiating, or false earnestness

• a tone of smarmy self-satisfaction
• —New Yorker

2 : of low sleazy taste or quality

 

[Srivijaya]

Strip away the religious stuff and you are left with a bunch of parents who want the best for their kids and don't want them exposed to porn.
You may disagree with particulars of the presentation but that's just their attempt to put a resource out there for their people using the context they have.
Stuff can't be unseen. Adults can process it; kids don't have the maturity to.

 

[Enoch07]

Ask a proper question and I will answer it for you.

LoLz

Whatever helps you sleep at night bra.

 

[Curious George]

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

It actually states it is not for group instruction of children. I believe it was intended for children to watch individually. It is trying to get the child to initiate the conversation with the parent.

I agree that the video was designed to help keep young children away from pornography and help parents have a discussion with their children. While it assumes a religious perspective, it does so because the target audience is assumed to have that same perspective.

 

[Curious George]

Yes, exactly. It's simply using children, as their peers, to present the message. Sometimes listening to peers, in this case children, has a greater impact than listening to adults.

While I disagree with the religious messages, I do think using kids a little older than or around the age of the intended audience, to present the message was a move to reduce shame not to encourage peer pressure.

The film seemed to make attempts to limit shaming which can cause later psychological issues.

 

[Enoch07]

It actually states it is not for group instruction of children. I believe it was intended for children to watch individually. It is trying to get the child to initiate the conversation with the parent.

I agree that the video was designed to help keep young children away from pornography and help parents have a discussion with their children. While it assumes a religious perspective, it does so because the target audience is assumed to have that same perspective.

I'm glad we agree on the main message. But,

What does the first line of the disclaimer say?

Parents have the primary responsibility for teaching and protecting their children.

The disclaimer is saying to the parents

"Hey, this is just some helpful hints, but ultimately it is up to you to decide what to teach or not teach to your children".

That may entail a parent chosing to show this to their child. I wouldn't show it to a child. I would take the info provided and apply it in my own personal way. Which is what I think is the entire purpose of the video is.

Despite the religious overtones the message is positive and anyone can apply that message with or without the religious aspect of it.

 

[wizanda]

Seriously religious people who think this way are mental; by natural design we would see each other naked in human history...

This is equivalent to much of what they were presenting in this video...

They weren't on about hardcore sadomasochistic bondage, they were just talking about naked bodies.

God designed us to seek looking at each other naked, that is part of life.

What the Bible was on about is Porniea, which tho we get the word from porn from it, originally meant sexual immorality...

Seeing someone naked is not sexually immoral, and to imprint that onto children's minds is next to child abuse; as they will be mentally scarred for the rest of their life, never being able to feel truly comfortable in their own skin.

In my opinion.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Children generally learn their morals from their first family(parents). Parents can never realistically protect their children from Porn, Graphic Violence, or anything else. Especially, in a world where everything is accessible, uncensored, acceptable, or allowed. Parents can never control the curiosity that is inherent of all young minds. The best thing parents can do is practice what they preach, and establish a strong support system for the child's physical and emotional security. Children learn more from the visual cues of their parents, than from their verbal cues. The first mistake most parents make is not to taking the time to understand the unique nature of their child first. The second mistake is not knowing their child's level understanding, maturity, or comprehension. They can do more harm than good. The third mistake is to associate moral values with an imaginary supernatural Father figure, or any Religion. This prevents the child from ever questioning why. The fourth mistake is assuming that your moral values and beliefs are correct, or that if you can be corrupted by Porn so will your child. Children are exposed to a different environment, then we were in our time. Our own feelings and experiences might cloud our judgement.

Pornography, is just another product being sold for profit, without regards for its effects on the libidos, emotions, and the psychological development of the young and vulnerable. It exploits and packages lovemaking and deviant behavior, as a source for entertainment and pleasure. This satisfies our pleasure drive, and attracts our natural curiosity. Porn escalates our need to procreate, and ignores the natural processes that must be experienced along the way(love, responsibility, loyalty, commitment, respect, etc.). It is the oldest profession in the world, gone digital.

My advice would be to address the subject only when it is brought up by the child. This will happen if trust and ego are not an issue. Children are confused, and do not understand the changes that are happening to their bodies. Before this, it is mostly harmless curiosity, like lion cubs mock fighting. Explain it to them. How you explain it to them, is dependent on not making the 4 mistakes I outlined. This is crucial to how effective and lasting your message will be, and how well they will understand it. The goal would be that the child feels that he/she has worked it out for himself, not that you worked it out for them. But, deep down knowing that you did. Remember our goal is to instil independence not dependence, disguised as protection. Don

 

[Curious George]

I'm glad we agree on the main message. But,
View attachment 20596
What does the first line of the disclaimer say?

Parents have the primary responsibility for teaching and protecting their children.

The disclaimer is saying to the parents

"Hey, this is just some helpful hints, but ultimately it is up to you to decide what to teach or not teach to your children".

That may entail a parent chosing to show this to their child. I wouldn't show it to a child. I would take the info provided and apply it in my own personal way. Which is what I think is the entire purpose of the video is.

Despite the religious overtones the message is positive and anyone can apply that message with or without the religious aspect of it.

I agree that the video is very clear that parents have the primary responsibility for teaching and protecting children. That too is part of the video which is very much intended for the child to see. It communicates a message. You can trust your parent. This is not for your friends.

This video was very much designed for an adult with a particular religious outlook to show a child with a particular religious outlook. It was not designed for an adult with different beliefs to show a child with different beliefs. However, I think you may be correct in that the makers of the video would be very pleased if a person took the central messages and used them to help young children, with different outlooks, sans religious messages. I think that the intent behind the video is not indoctrination but to address the problem of very young children accessing/ being exposed to sexually graphic material.

 

[Faithofchristian]

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?


.

Well first off, It's doesn't offend the Holy Spirit.
So I don't know where the Latter day Saints get that at.

If seeing people with out any clothes on offends the Holy Spirit, then how do the Latter Day Saints, explain about Adam and Eve being created without clothes ?

I guess to the Latter Day Saints that would be pornography also ?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Stuff can't be unseen. Adults can process it; kids don't have the maturity to.

I don't think the opposition to the video is about children, to be honest. I think it's about people being tired of church leaders trying to police every aspect of public life. From stuff like this, right on down to suggesting laws that would restrict or illegalize pornography.

That may not be what this video is about, but it stirs bad feelings and contempt nonetheless. In America we constantly have right-wing Christians trying to be morality police for the nation.

If this video was produced by people that think porn is generally immoral or a societal ill, which seems likely considering the source- the opposition has to do with American politics and what further motives there might be.

It also likely involves a sense for some of us that parents shouldn't be seeking to sway their children against pornography before they're even old enough to have a sense of why it may be right or wrong.

Not letting your kids watch certain things is understandable. The concern is- is that all Mormons are likely to be teaching children about porn? Or are they likely to be drilling a political position into them, which they hope will one day make the kids oppose pornography for everyone else?

We're tired of right-wing Christians trying to be national moral police like this is Saudi Arabia or something.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm glad we agree on the main message. But,
View attachment 20596
What does the first line of the disclaimer say?

Parents have the primary responsibility for teaching and protecting their children.
nThe disclaimer is saying to the parents

"Hey, this is just some helpful hints, but ultimately it is up to you to decide what to teach or not teach to your children".

That may entail a parent chosing to show this to their child. I wouldn't show it to a child. I would take the info provided and apply it in my own personal way. Which is what I think is the entire purpose of the video is.

Despite the religious overtones the message is positive and anyone can apply that message with or without the religious aspect of it.

And it was explained to you why that is a failed argument on your part. Believing a disclaimer when the evidence tells you that it is a misleading statement only shows willful gullibility on the part believing the disclaimer.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I am curious if those who oppose porn find the video as useful and productive.

I only oppose the exploitation nature of it. Take care of that issue and it's the safest "sex" around. I don't engage in it. I don't like it. My imagination covers anything I can think of. Don't like to watch other people's privates in general. Still think that if there is someone who needs to get their jollies in a safe manner, toys and videos will do the trick.

Children generally learn their morals from their first family(parents).

And as they grow older, they will realize their parents were less than honest about their own lives.

The best thing parents can do is practice what they preach, and establish a strong support system for the child's physical and emotional security.

Exactly. I wouldn't even threaten them with hell. Seems like an overreaction. If you really want the kid not to be attracted to it, calmly explain that it's inappropriate but some adults watch it for *cough* "assistance" in the bedroom and that sex industries tend to exploit their employees. I think the last part is important because it should reduce objectification if you teach the child to think about what those people in those videos have to do and how they're treated.

If seeing people with out any clothes on offends the Holy Spirit, then how do the Latter Day Saints, explain about Adam and Eve being created without clothes ?

I guess to the Latter Day Saints that would be pornography also ?

Their heads will explode with Ezekiel 23:20.

 

[Srivijaya]

That may not be what this video is about, but it stirs bad feelings and contempt nonetheless. In America we constantly have right-wing Christians trying to be morality police for the nation.

We're tired of right-wing Christians trying to be national moral police like this is Saudi Arabia or something.

I hear what you are saying and feel sorry for it. I sense there is a big issue around liberty in the US. Just a pity that the issue of protecting kid's minds (which i think everyone would agree with) can be exploited as the thin end of the wedge.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think adults tend to forget when they were kids themselves.

Just telling them to stay away from it isn't enough. Kids will need some kind of a release because keeping this kind of hormonal urge artificially pent-up because of some self righteous religious ideology is going to do far more harm because they'll start seeking out places, people, and situations where they shouldn't be.

The video doesn't even address masturbation and other forms of personal release as an alternative so things can properly settle down for them when sexual feelings arise in order to avoid real life consequences from experimentation gone awry. New York State had far better instructional material and that was shown in groups at middle/high school level in health class.

Making videos like this is just about as worthless as the "Just Say No" campaign so far aside from maybe being a reminder for parents to have a talk with their kids.

Using Heavenly Father as a deterrent can only go so far. I think a deaf-mute Heavenly Father isn't going to do much good. It's religious stuff so it's not surprising it's used in a coming of age video.

 

[james bond]

I don't think the opposition to the video is about children, to be honest. I think it's about people being tired of church leaders trying to police every aspect of public life. From stuff like this, right on down to suggesting laws that would restrict or illegalize pornography.

That may not be what this video is about, but it stirs bad feelings and contempt nonetheless. In America we constantly have right-wing Christians trying to be morality police for the nation.

If this video was produced by people that think porn is generally immoral or a societal ill, which seems likely considering the source- the opposition has to do with American politics and what further motives there might be.

It also likely involves a sense for some of us that parents shouldn't be seeking to sway their children against pornography before they're even old enough to have a sense of why it may be right or wrong.

Not letting your kids watch certain things is understandable. The concern is- is that all Mormons are likely to be teaching children about porn? Or are they likely to be drilling a political position into them, which they hope will one day make the kids oppose pornography for everyone else?

We're tired of right-wing Christians trying to be national moral police like this is Saudi Arabia or something.

>>BD: I don't think the opposition to the video is about children, to be honest. I think it's about people being tired of church leaders trying to police every aspect of public life. From stuff like this, right on down to suggesting laws that would restrict or illegalize pornography.<<

This is an incredulous statement to me because the video does not appear to be a commercial, and aren't you being just as judgmental to the Church of LDS from just one video? Where are the calls for police action on laws of the internet in the video? (I think brick and mortar porn businesses can only be placed in limited areas and zoning ordinances.)

How much porn do you think is out there on the internet? What kind of restrictions does it have? Do you think that it is easily accessible by children? What does Buddhism say about pornography? Do Buddhists discuss the problem in church?

>> BD: That may not be what this video is about, but it stirs bad feelings and contempt nonetheless. In America we constantly have right-wing Christians trying to be morality police for the nation.<<

Okay, so now we're getting somewhere. So you think morality is "policed" by the churches. Or we live in an era where the fundamentalists "police" morality by telling you and the public what you cannot watch. Do you know that the Church of LDS or Mormon church is not considered mainstream Christianity?

To me, that seems like decades ago. Is it being revived? Last I checked, I can order hardcore porn in your hotel or motel room.

And morality is part of the job of churches. What's bad about porn on the internet is that it's too easily accessible, so children can see it. Then there is the promotion of all types of different sex, so that one feels their expectations aren't being met by their spouse or that they're missing something from their lives. Basically, porn is for prurient interests and masturbatory purposes by lone individuals. A few times, I watched porn at a bachelor party, but after all the catcalls and funny comments, it quickly got boring (until the strippers showed up).

For pornography, the best statement is that, "I know pornography when I see it." It's not easily determined by laws as then art including photographic, film, ceramics, statues and other mediums can be banned. What is pornography does not constitute an easy question to answer.

 

[ChristineM]

Intetesting how freedom of expression is a right of every human being in the west yet churches try and restrict that right to suit their personal sensibilities.