Just a quick recap.
E. Packer gave a talk in General Conference that many considered controversial. Controversy centered around: 1) the implication that homosexuality is a choice and homosexuals can change, and 2) that the Proclamation on the Family was canonized revelation and therefore binding to members.
Fueled by recent gay teen suicides in the news, the HRC (Human Rights Campaign) threatened to descend on Temple Square en masse to protest. The church office building fielded thousands of calls from members complaining about the talk. When the text of the talk was published, it was altered. The church’s PR department gave an official response to the HRC. In the meanwhile, some orthodox members have created a Facebook campaign to support E. Packer in this controversy.
So, with all this going on, what’s your take? Let’s poll and find out!
[poll id=”5″]
[poll id=”6″]
[poll id=”7″]
TGIF from W&T!
Wheat & Tares 
My vote for the second question didn’t most accurately reflect my thoughts. Talks are routinely edited after the fact- often quite substantially. Though the edits made on this talk aren’t anything out of the ordinary, the response to and awareness of those edits is extraordinary- and marks an important milestone.
Good distinction, Starfoxy! I tend to agree.
Excellent point.
I was surprised that no one saw my post on semantic contamination as a commentary of Packard’s talk and on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
“How would you describe what happened regarding Packer’s talk being changed?”
Packer’s been saying stuff like this for years, but there is now a magical device called the Internet that allows people to be called out for inappropriate remarks.
“How important do you believe this incident was?”
It was the most highly scrutinised incident of bigoted speech, PR fallout, and santising by the Ministry of Truth that has ever happened. It’s going to force the LDS Church to re-think its messaging, because it can no longer control the message or the commentary.
“What’s your view about homosexuality?”
It’s normal and natural. And someone else’s sexuality is none of my business.
Best talk at conference.
“Best talk at conference”
NOT!
I’ll take Dieter for 1000 Alex.
Re #5 – It seems to me that those who say “best talk at conference” regarding President Packer’s speech are just saying so to make a statement, protect President Packer or the church, or are doing so in reaction to the reaction to his talk. I don’t know anyone who has yet to say it was their favorite talk and not do so in the context of all the complaints about his talk… because let’s get serious, there were some pretty good talks, and even if you don’t love airplanes, President Uchtdorf’s talk in priesthood meeting was untouchable by any talk in a while.
Well, I do have to concede, and I mean this in all sincerity and not mocking to anyone with addictions, people who have in the past struggled with a pornography addiction may have liked his talk for that aspect of it.
To the first poll question – I saw one article that said the text of the talks are submitted a long time in advance to be printed in the Ensign, and that speakers kind of ad lib and go off the text at the conference.
@AdamF – there’s no such thing as porn addiction. There’s no scientific evidence that viewing porn is bad for you, and people who suffer mental distress about viewing porn only do because they’ve been told that it’s immoral and harmful.
Stephen: Shameless plug?
Carla: There are some studies that suggest that men who view porn are also more likely to be violent towards women. Look around and you might find that pornography may have a more negative impact than you think. But you’re right, we’re ALL addicted to sex…
Homosexuality and SSM is presenting a huge PR problem for the church. Elder Packer isn’t saying anything differently than what he’s said in the past, but now that it’s front page news the PR machine has kicked in and damage control is trying to sweep up. BUT, I think that the only way this becomes a real issue for the church is if they take another controversial political stand or someone says something else, because, in reality, this wouldn’t have even been on the national radar if it hadn’t been for Prop 8. If the church does a little cleaning up, and keeps out of the news then this will pass quickly. If Elder Packer or another general authority feels as if they need to “stand for principle” then they’re in for a fight both in and outside of the church.
I certainly hope that this is a wake up call for the church. I hope that they’re getting the message that people are listening and they aren’t liking what they hear.
AdamF
You are partly correct. I am making a statement. His talk was excellent. A speech on the biggest plague of our day (pornography) with a brief mention of homosexual relations. All told, it was a cry for repentance with a promise of forgiveness. It was “bearing down in pure testimony” as encouraged in the book of Mormon. As Alma encouraged us, it was bold, but not overbearing. It was excellent. It was a talk you would expect from the second highest ranking member if the church. It was a talk you would expect from the president of the 12. I again proclaim with boldness, it was the best talk given in my opinion.
@Justin – but is that correlation or causation? I doubt the porn is causing it rather than increased porn-watching being a symptom of having a lot of testosterone.
@Will – like I said before, watching porn is not harmful. It’s not a “plague.” There’s no such thing as porn addiction.
“I certainly hope that this is a wake up call for the church. I hope that they’re getting the message that people are listening and they aren’t liking what they hear.”
If only Jesus and Joseph Smith would have taken this advice. Perhaps both men would have lived longer lives. Then again, there are a few Scriptures warning not to trust in the Arm of Flesh over the Words of G-d.
Carla – I would love to know more. What is your background on this topic? What kind of experience have you had working with that population?
” people who suffer mental distress about viewing porn only do because they’ve been told that it’s immoral and harmful.”
I am also interested in the scientific evidence that supports this claim. My evidence is only anecdotal on this point, but I have many colleagues in the field of couple therapy who have had clients without any kind of religious upbringing or belief, who are “addicted” to pornography use. This isn’t just a religious problem.
Actually, we should probably be clear that there is no standard term for this phenomenon yet. Some researchers call it “problematic pornography use.” Use that term if it fits you better. “Addiction” is not currently even in the DSM, so from a scientific standpoint, there aren’t ANY addictions. 😉
Addiction is definitely in the DSM. I double checked just to make sure and Substance Dependence is definitely in there (as was substance abuse). I am also fairly certain you will see addictions to pornography and a few other things in the new DSM V (scheduled to come out in 2012).
@ Carla: It’s definitely correlation, not causation. My point is that there’s definitely research out there to indicate that pornography may have more than just a null effect. Natasha Parker at mormonmatters.org has had some posts that you may find interesting.
Furthermore, saying that there’s no such thing as a pornography addiction is like saying that there’s no such thing as a sexual paraphilia. Certainly something like pornography can interrupt both normal sexual function and daily routines (like work for example) because it does all the time.
Actually, it’s not. “Substance abuse” and dependence are, but the term “addiction” is not, although it could be in the DSM-V, whenever that is actually completed. Carla specifically pointed out my use of the word “addiction” so I clarified that it is not yet a DSM term. My biggest point here is that debating over whether it is an “addiction” (a word not even in the DSM) or not is a waste of time. Call it whatever one wants, the fact is many people, religious or not, can’t stop using it despite their best efforts. Also, testosterone both enhances and diminishes sex drive – i.e. there is no scientific consensus on this.
Although I think the church’s attitude towards pornography is often counterproductive and harmful, I think Carla goes too far in the other direction.
Yes, there are some members of the church who use pornography about once every month to six months who should probably be told “Is that all? Don’t worry about it” but are instead told they’re addicts, sent to counselors, and enrolled in 12-step programs. That kind of thing is absurd and harmful.
But there are also some people (in and out of the church) whose lives (work/school and relationships, etc.) are genuinely disrupted by heavy porn use and need help. I think it does a disservice to those people to say that there’s no such thing as problematic porn use.
Calra,
Think what you want about pornography, the main purpose of my comment was to point out what I liked about President Packer’s comments, which included a brief mention of homosexual relations, which has received most of the fan fare. I would add it is not that I disliked the talks from the remaining Apostles or Prophet, it is just his talk is exactly what our country needs. The talks that inspire and motivate from the First Presidency will keep you in the game, but when the final cut is made it will be the level of repentance we have obtained that will determine or destiny. Moreover, the financial woes in our nations won’t be fixed by Republicans, Conservatives, Tea-partiers, or heaven forbid Democrats. This land will be blessed again when it starts to heed the commandments of our Lord via his prophets. We are in the destruction and suffering phase of the cycle of pride and humility and repentance are the keys to lifting us out.
AdamF: the word addiction isn’t in the DSM but certainly substance dependence is the same thing as substance addiction (a physical addiction). It’s a semantic difference but not a meaningful one. Also, Impulse-Control Disorders encapsulate the idea of a “mental addiction” (pathological gambling is an impulse-control disorder), since its defining feature is the “failure to resist an impulse, drive, or temptation to perform an act that is harmful to the person or to others.” A pornography addiction could very easily be coded as an impulse-control disorder NOS. So there ARE addictions recognized by the DSM and the scientific community, they just aren’t officially called that (even the sexual paraphilias could be considered “addictions”).
Again, these are semantic differences, so to say that there’s no scientifically regarded idea of addiction is just inaccurate. My guess is that the new DSM (scheduled for 2012) will clarify this.
are we saying the same thing?
UG.
I thought I was clear. 🙂
My comment was directed at Clara. She called me on the term “addiction.” My point was that saying something is “not an addiction” is not very useful (or precise). Obviously I use the term myself when talking to colleagues. Also, I have used impulse control disorder NOS before to diagnose a client. Maybe we are saying the same thing…
@Justin – can you please cite a source that it is definitely causation? I’d be interested to see that.
Addiction might be in the DSM, but porn addiction is not (and it won’t be in the next DSM as far as I know). Because it does not exist. You might think you can just lump two disorders together because they’re similar (to you) but any psychologist (like my husband) will tell you that’s a pretty ignorant assessment of the topic. They used to call Autistic people retarded. They’re not. That’s an ignorant failure to distinguish between two different disorders. If the DSM distinguishes between them, then there’s a difference.
@AdamF I know this is bad argumentation but I’ve seen more than one reputable source say viewing porn is not harmful (so it’s not just my theory; I used to think the opposite until I saw evidence tot he contrary). I know one was an expert (a developmental psychologist) interviewed for a documentary (http://astore.amazon.com/lifasarea-20/detail/B002SAMMME) where she compared the effects of seeing violence in film/TV to seeing sex and the irony that sexual scenes are more likely to give the movie an R or NC-17 rating than violence will.
I’ve also seen psychologists complaining about the TV show Sex Rehab with Dr. Drew because sex addiction (and porn addiction) doesn’t exist. Certainly those people have problems that deal with sex and porn, but it wasn’t having sex and viewing porn that gave them problems.
Dispute over porn addiction doesn’t favor calling it addiction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porn_addiction#Dispute_whether_pornography_addiction_exists
Check out the “conclusions” here: http://books.google.com/books?id=u4sxcPfU9ycC&pg=PA96#v=onepage&q&f=false
I don’t mean to say porn can’t be a problem for some people. I mean to say that I think it is more often the symptom of a different problem, and that porn, in and of itself is not evil, not any more than shopping is (and plenty of people have a shopping “addiction”) So by that I mean that this is a complicated issue and calling porn evil or a “plague” doesn’t help anybody. All you do is demonize something that, if you don’t have a dependence or problem with it, isn’t bad for you. So all you do is make people feel guilty about doing something that is normal and not harmful. That’s a logical conclusion – if you tell people something is wrong when it’s not, you get disordered thought. This is complicated. Proclaiming moral absolutes on a mental health issue is just harmful.
@Justin – can you please cite a source that it is definitely causation? I’d be interested to see that.
Addiction might be in the DSM, but porn addiction is not (and it won’t be in the next DSM as far as I know). Because it does not exist. You might think you can just lump two disorders together because they’re similar (to you) but any psychologist (like my husband) will tell you that’s a pretty ignorant assessment of the topic. They used to call Autistic people retarded. They’re not. That’s an ignorant failure to distinguish between two different disorders. If the DSM distinguishes between them, then there’s a difference.
@AdamF I know this is bad argumentation but I’ve seen more than one reputable source say viewing porn is not harmful (so it’s not just my theory; I used to think the opposite until I saw evidence tot he contrary). I know one was an expert (a developmental psychologist) interviewed for a documentary (http://astore.amazon.com/lifasarea-20/detail/B002SAMMME) where she compared the effects of seeing violence in film/TV to seeing sex and the irony that sexual scenes are more likely to give the movie an R or NC-17 rating than violence will.
I’ve also seen psychologists complaining about the TV show Sex Rehab with Dr. Drew because sex addiction (and porn addiction) doesn’t exist. Certainly those people have problems that deal with sex and porn, but it wasn’t having sex and viewing porn that gave them problems.
Dispute over porn addiction doesn’t favor calling it addiction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porn_addiction#Dispute_whether_pornography_addiction_exists
Check out the “conclusions” here: http://books.google.com/books?id=u4sxcPfU9ycC&pg=PA96#v=onepage&q&f=false
I don’t mean to say porn can’t be a problem for some people. I mean to say that I think it is more often the symptom of a different problem, and that porn, in and of itself is not evil, not any more than shopping is (and plenty of people have a shopping “addiction”) So by that I mean that this is a complicated issue and calling porn evil or a “plague” doesn’t help anybody. All you do is demonize something that, if you don’t have a dependence or problem with it, isn’t bad for you. So all you do is make people feel guilty about doing something that is normal and not harmful. That’s a logical conclusion – if you tell people something is wrong when it’s not, you get disordered thought. This is complicated. Proclaiming moral absolutes on a mental health issue is just harmful.
@AdamF It’s not letting me post links, but I’ve seen more than one reputable source say viewing porn is not harmful (so it’s not just my theory; I used to think the opposite until I saw evidence tot he contrary). I know one was an expert (a developmental psychologist) interviewed for a documentary where she compared the effects of seeing violence in film/TV to seeing sex and the irony that sexual scenes are more likely to give the movie an R or NC-17 rating than violence will.
I’ve also seen psychologists complaining about the TV show Sex Rehab with Dr. Drew because sex addiction (and porn addiction) doesn’t exist. Certainly those people have problems that deal with sex and porn, but it wasn’t having sex and viewing porn that gave them problems.
I don’t mean to say porn can’t be a problem for some people. I mean to say that I think it is more often the symptom of a different problem, and that porn, in and of itself is not evil, not any more than shopping is (and plenty of people have a shopping “addiction”) So by that I mean that this is a complicated issue and calling porn evil or a “plague” doesn’t help anybody. All you do is demonize something that, if you don’t have a dependence or problem with it, isn’t bad for you. So all you do is make people feel guilty about doing something that is normal and not harmful. That’s a logical conclusion – if you tell people something is wrong when it’s not, you get disordered thought. This is complicated. Proclaiming moral absolutes on a mental health issue is just harmful.
When someone has a porn “addiction” (I’ll use the quote marks for your sake, haha) I totally agree, there is probably something else going on in their lives. Porn is often used as a medication of sorts.
Also, I never called porn “evil” or “a plague” so why don’t you direct that complaint to someone who has. 😀
Also, telling someone who cannot stop using porn that there is “no such thing as porn addiction” is an absolute as well, and does nothing to help them.
Also, what is “porn” anyway? What are we even talking about? If you’re going to say that viewing child porn is not harmful, or viewing scenes of rape or etc. is not harmful (although we have to define “harmful”) then there is no use talking more here. However, if what you’re basically saying is a few looks at Maxim or Playboy or etc. is not the cause of addiction per se, I totally agree. The problem with many “porn addicts” is not the content of the porn itself. I think we’d agree that viewing nudity per se, or viewing sex per se is not “harmful.” Or shopping, eating, gambling, or gosh, even smoking a joint once a year. The problem is in the process of “pornography addiction.” People develop a way of relating to their bodies and urges that make it impossible to get out of their cycle of behaviors alone. They feel an urge, they fixate, and are compelled to go look at porn and masturbate. Some of my clients call this an addiction, which has been VERY helpful, and going to the 12 step programs (which I don’t think the 12 steps per se are necessary, but can be very helpful for many) which include admitting no control of their “addiction.” Taking it on this way has been very effective for them. If they want to call it something else, like “unhealthy sexual behaviors” or whatever, that’s fine too. Making the blanket/absolute assertion that “there is no such thing as pornography addiction” is intellectually stimulating (in terms of these endless debates, which obviously I’m growing tired of, haha), and dismissing of individual experience.
Also, whether or not it will be in the next DSM is still up for debate. There is no “consensus” on this yet. If it is, great, then insurance companies can get more accurate descriptors. If not, whatever. If you don’t want to call behavioral addictions “addictions” then great! Don’t. The fact is, the term is very useful for some, and as Kuri pointed out, abused by others (e.g. if you look at porn once a year you’re an “addict.”). I will continue to work with clients according to what works for them.
Also, thanks for the links. I also have about 50 journal articles at home, but you need access via a university or whatnot to get at them.
Wait, what? This was a porn talk? I think I like it even less in that case. Seems to me that “porn talks” went mainstream about 3 GCs ago. Before that, they were just in the PH session. Do we need to slap a parental warning on conference now? Is there anything family friendly on TV? I have to explain why two girls are making out on Glee, and now what the ‘pernicious perils of pornagraphy’ means (or other alliterative GC-sounding references)?
Fortunately, the kids aren’t really paying attention too much during GC. Maybe if MoTab did spontaneous snappy numbers with dancing and enthusiasm like they do on Glee.
Hawkgrrrl,
They could also show us what is wrong and what is right, that would probably increase viewership 🙂
Carla on October 15, 2010 at 10:20 PM
@AdamF – there’s no such thing as porn addiction. There’s no scientific evidence that viewing porn is bad for you, and people who suffer mental distress about viewing porn only do because they’ve been told that it’s immoral and harmful.
Carla:
Addiction to pornography is deadly and can devastate you spiritually.
DSM 5 draft specifications include hypersexuality disorder with pornography specifier:
http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=415
Visit the rationale tab for references.
This has spun off topic: the problem with editing conference talks after the fact is that they are vetted before the fact. The editing shows a certain cluelessness in the church leadership and a disturbing sensitivity to perception over conviction.
#35 – Thanks for the link. Hypersexuality is another good term I think… perhaps with less controversy than addiction.
#36 – Joe – I’ve heard that most of the talks are “vetted” beforehand (with some exceptions). My guess is that the delivered talks are not always in line with the pre-written “vetted” talks.
@Joe: “the problem with editing conference talks after the fact is that they are vetted before the fact.”
Evidence?
There’s one important answer on ‘your view on homosexuality’ and that is ‘I don’t know’.
For the first time in my life I’ve felt comfortable with the answer ‘I don’t know’.
I’m not homosexual so why would I think I’d have any authority on the origination of such feelings, where they come from or how they should be overcome. I’m ok with ‘I don’t know’.
My opinon on homosexual marriage, a different story.
@Paul
This is common knowledge and has been referenced several times by general authorities and historians. Quips have been made about it. During one redaction, a rather goofy statement was made to the effect that while talks are edited, they sometimes come across different when delivered. (IIRC, this was a talk that wasn’t just redacted, but retaped to an empty tabernacle Sunday afternoon.)
@Paul
One more thing. I’ve sat behind the pulpit during a priesthood session several decades ago. Not only are all the talks ready for display on the teleprompters, there were several binders with all the talks in them.
(People I know involved with Church magazines also confirm that there are professional writers who write many of the talks and articles, which are then passed through correlation, though a certain BKP has been known to bypass the system.
Ensign staff have copies of the talks and follow along to be sure if not given word for word then corrections are made for publication. There was a problem about 30 years ago when Pres. Monson then an apostle started his talk with something along the line of looking a child in the balcony and deciding to depart from his prepared remarks. Unfortunately that was his prepared remarks which caused a reporter in the press booth who was following a long to make a comment about Pres. Monson’s veracity.
Re: tendency vs. temptation
I noticed last night this from his 10/2003 GenCon talk
“In the Church, one is not condemned for *tendencies or temptations*. One is held accountable for transgression. If you do not act on unworthy persuasions, you will neither be condemned nor be subject to Church discipline.”
This both clarifies his meaning and quells the controversy about this tweak.