- ji on How Many Latter-day Saints View Pornography?: “I think some talking at cross-purposes is occurring here. Maybe I can craft a few Q&As on which there might be universal agreement… Does the church counsel its members to avoid pornography? Yes (well, yes in the recent past but not as much lately). Is viewing pornography a sin? Maybe, maybe even probably, but inasmuch as the current handbook states that viewing pornography is not a basis for church discipline, I suppose it is not a major sin. Our scripture is silent on the matter, and God has never provided a complete list of all possible sins especially for private matter — indeed, God’s concept of sin may differ from the church’s concept (and the church’s concept may change with time), and the church’s concept may differ from an individual member’s concept (which also may change with time). For a great many matters, especially small matters, the same identical action might be a sin for one person in a particular circumstance and might not be a sin for a different person or a different circumstance. Can one who views pornography hold a temple recommend? Yes, at least since the change in questions in 2019; provided, the applicant can affirm that he or she is striving for moral cleanliness. Viewing pornography might be unclean and/or unchaste, but is not a violation of the church’s Law of Chastity.” Apr 6, 18:13
- on How Many Latter-day Saints View Pornography?: “Yikes! You guys are rough here. But that’s OK, it’s your space. About that oral sex letter—you may be right that it was but one letter. It had a long afterlife however. I heard Randy Bott teach it at BYU with my own ears, and before that may home bishop do the same. It wasn’t unknown, not in the slightest. Literally thousands of Bott’s students must have heard it taught for probably 20-30 years. And I believed him and trusted him. Why wouldn’t I back then? My spouse, they got the same teaching at Rics multiple times in multiple religious education courses. They believed it too, as did thousands of others through the 80s and 90s and beyond. So don’t act like it was a fringe thing. We both entered marriage with the baseline understanding that it was absolutely a sin for married couples. YMMV. I notice that Jonathan didn’t respond to my question about why he presumably has ignored the generations long teachings against using birth control. He dismissed it as whataboutism. That’s a dodge. My guess is that he and his wife decided to ignore or adapt those very, very strict and precise teachings that came straight from the very highest authorities. And I also guess that he and his wife have taught their children to do the same. Creating life and bringing children into existence is like a million times more impactful a moral decision than pornography use in a marriage. So why ignore the teachings about the one and be so absolutist about the other? As for marital pornography use, I think you overestimate or are engaging in some lurid imagination about what that might look like in a long term marriage. We are not young! We can barely stay awake past 9:30, and neither of us has any extra energy for anything crazy. Someone mentioned swinging! LOL. Ew, just no. Erotic material in our marriage is more like an aid, or accelerant, or helpful shortcut when that is beneficial. And, Jonathan, you do realize that most people have very basic desires and have the opposite of the kind of reactions to exploitative stuff you seem to imagine comprises all pornographic or erotic material? Your response seriously gives me the creeps.” Apr 6, 18:01
- on How Many Latter-day Saints View Pornography?: “If Brother Anonymous and his spouse were swingers to keep the marriage going then the stones being thrown here may be more justified. Porn in a marriage may not be the gospel plan, or any marital plan, but if it is not keeping them from the temple then I think his view on how it works for them is warranted. He is clearly not suggesting that everyone should live this way. To Last Lemmings point, in the past there were lots of official policies that were only privy/sent to Bishops and up. Not sure if that is still a thing or not. Some of these letters sat around for years leaving leaders to wonder if they were still a thing. A couple that come to mind is the “no children bearing testimonies in sacrament, not asking members to turn to scriptures during there talks in church, not using props of any kind during your talks in church. (these were all read over the pulpit but it makes my point) Are they all still valid? If coffee/booze keeps you out of the temple but porn doesn’t……hmmm…. I am not saying porn is NOT a sin but just saying that it may not be a serious sin in the churches view, anymore. I am saying coffee/booze/smokes is not a sin and should have never become such IMO. Anyone eat meat this last summer and still got a temple rec?? I have a stone to throw at you! ;) Any current YSA bishops or SP in here? I have heard there are no councils (or whatever they are called now) for YSA’s who fornicate. Maybe for habitual fornicators there is?” Apr 6, 16:12
- on How Many Latter-day Saints View Pornography?: “If your response to extremely clear teachings and scripture about pornography is whataboutism, then your capacity for moral calculus is badly impaired and I wouldn’t rely too heavily on it. This isn’t the odd cup of coffee we’re talking about here, but pornography. An industry that exploits the most basic human instinct, selling a promise of unlimited sexual pleasure without negative consequence and sexual congress severed from human and eternal relationship. You can’t consume it without letting it rewire neural pathways that affect how you see and relate to everyone you know. I don’t care about your failings and imperfections; there’s a whole plan for that. But promoting marital pornography use as some kind of solution? That’s a load of cr*p, and it’s a giant red flag that you can’t see it.” Apr 6, 15:03
- on How Many Latter-day Saints View Pornography?: “That stricture [on oral sex] was never officially rescinded The “stricture” was contained in a single letter to bishops and stake presidents in the early 80s. You can search the Church website from front to back and you will not find that letter or any reference to it. The vast majority of adult members have never heard of it and I suspect that most would not believe you if you claimed, in their presence, that it was ever issued. Even during the single recommend interview that I underwent while it was in effect, the bishop was unwilling to say it out loud and it was not until I saw a copy of the letter years later that I finally understood what he was talking about. I don’t know precisely how the letter was rescinded, but I can think of few things during my lifetime (perhaps the POX) that have been promulgated and as thoroughly rescinded as that letter.” Apr 6, 14:58
- on How Many Latter-day Saints View Pornography?: “The intent of Jesus’ teaching is clear: we should not have sexual thoughts or feelings about anyone but our spouse. Now, like many of the teachings in the Sermon on the Mount, this is a star to steer by rather than a destination we should expect to reach in this life. I’m in no position to judge anyone. But Jesus’ promise is that he can make us perfect in time–if that’s what we want. (Note that this is a commandment from the Savior in the scriptures. It is not comparable to some church leaders expressing their opinions on oral sex back in the 80s. Past teachings on birth control have been replaced by section 38.6.4 in the Handbook.) That we are (or should be) completely dependent on our spouses to fulfill our sexual desires is a feature, not a bug. Sexuality is designed to help couples cleave to one another. Physical intimacy should be a profoundly vulnerable and unselfish encounter with a complete person: body, soul, and agency. And not just any person, but the person we will share our entire lives and our eternities with. I can see how using pornography as a couple is far less destructive than using it alone, but it’s still separating sexuality from a complete relationship with a complete person. On “porn addiction” vs. “problematic compulsive use”: if you want to help someone with a problem, it helps to have an accurate understanding of the problem. Sometimes the details don’t matter: the Church’s Addiction Recovery Program works well for many people struggling with pornography because, despite the name, its approach isn’t specific to addiction. It’s really about crowding out darkness with the light of Christ. But it can help to have some understanding of the unique neurochemistry associated with sexuality, which is not the same as the neurochemistry associated with classic addiction. For example, the “drop” that some people experience after using pornography has a neurochemical component, and it shouldn’t be taken to mean either “Religion has ruined my ability to enjoy a harmless pastime without shame!” or “Now that I’ve realized how awful porn is I’ll never be tempted by it again!” It seems to me that some people are invested in pornography being “addictive” because they think that will make it sound scarier to youth. But we need to be worthy of their trust–the last thing someone who is striving to repent of problematic pornography use needs is to think “Wait, I’m not experiencing withdrawal symptoms. Were they lying to me about pornography being addictive?” The real consequences of using pornography should be persuasive enough if we teach them clearly.” Apr 6, 12:53
- on How Many Latter-day Saints View Pornography?: “What about the no oral sex between married people teachings of the80s, that it was an impure and unholy sexual act? That stricture was never officially rescinded, and it came from the top leaders of the church. And what about the absolutist and frequently repeated condemnation of the evils of using birth control within a marriage? That has never been officially rescinded either, and it came from top leaders of the church for generations. By my moral calculus, these acts would have a case for being far more evil or immoral than a couple that utilizes pornography within their marriage. But I am guessing that Jonathan Greenwood and Matthew B have ignored both teachings for the good health of their marriage and because they have decided as married partners that they know best for their relationship. What is more, I am guessing that if they were totally honest, both would admit that one or both of those teachings from the highest leaders of the church were wrong and harmful. What accounts for this?” Apr 6, 11:17
- on How Many Latter-day Saints View Pornography?: “I think members would be surprised that porn partakers are typically allowed to hold temple recommends. (if it is not extreme or hurts the spouse) Masturbaters are as well. Not long ago, leaders/members in the church were allowed (required) to have multiple wives. If our minds and belief can tell us that having sex with multiple women in the name of religion is holy, then maybe using porn to help a marriage cant be all that bad. IMO. Maybe Brother Anonymous has found a good use for it. Some who view porn may lead to adultery. Some who view porn may prevent adultery. In a perfect world we all get married and comply to the churches policies 100%. I say policies because we used to be ok with multiple wives, drinking booze, smoking/chewing, not following the laws of the land etc. Now we are hell-bound for doing those same things. Looking at a woman to lust is an important teaching to help us from committing the real (bigger) sin of fornication and adultery. Coveting is also a preemptive “bigger sin” stopper of say, stealing. Lusting is not the sin of adultery anymore than wishing your neighbor was dead is as bad as actually killing your neighbor. Bad thoughts is a sin but not the same as the sin of doing bad things. Can I lust after my wife? Is it the lust part that is bad or just the other woman part bad? Both? What is the bigger sin, Lust or hate? Porn or violence? Is divorce or porn the bigger sin? There are degrees of sin that we all deal with. Zero sin is ideal but not realistic for most. Even tho I would not live or suggest someone live the way Brother Anonymous does, I am happy that this is working for them and hope it continues to until they can live the higher law most commenters seem to be living. Didn’t Hinkley say we (church leaders) probably should not have “vilified” viewing porn so much in a conference talk?” Apr 6, 09:40
- on Cutting Edge Latter-day Saint Research, March 2026: “RL: For Table 1 I see that lifers are 95% white, exiters are 96.6% white, and converts are 84% white. So yes, converts do look like they’re less white than cradle Latter-day Saints, but I doubt the difference in race is significant between the exiters and lifers, since it’s only 1.6% different. The p-value is significant, but that’s for a chi-square that’s just testing whether the distribution as a whole, including the converts, is different, so it’s not specifically testing lifers versus leavers. So to make a long story short, I don’t really see a race story in who is leaving. Even though exiters are more white, it’s probably just noise.” Apr 6, 07:21
- on How Many Latter-day Saints View Pornography?: “Here’s a basic teaching: “Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” If you think I’m judgy, wait till you get to explain the time you tried to persuade people that using pornography was good and healthy. Assuming you’re real, I think there’s a good chance you’re setting yourself up for some massive problems down the road. You’ve persuaded your wife to ignore your porn habit and maybe indulge in her own. What happens when she starts feeling guilty after a talk at church or General Conference or a temple recommend interview? Libido is not the only thing that can be imbalanced in marriage; so can a sense of guilt. Are you going to prevent her from seeking guidance from the bishop? How does this play out when the bishop asks for your side of the story? If your marriage crumbles, for this or any other reason, how does your sophisticated take on pornography sound at a custody hearing? Lusting after other women is not something that should be normalized as part of a healthy marriage. Husbands, love your wives. Your real wife, not some airbrushed fake or AI hallucination.” Apr 6, 05:22
