Even in the days before television and the internet, Church leaders have struggled with the problem of speaking plainly to Church members, while at the same time knowing that words spoken in General Conference and other formal settings would be recorded and broadcast to non-members around the world.  President Brigham Young discussed this problem in 1857 when addressing a group of Saints in Salt Lake City’s “Bowery”:

“Our Sermons are read by tens of thousands outside of Utah.  Members of the British Parliament have those Journal of Discourses, published by brother Watt; they have them locked up, they secrete them, and go to their rooms to study them, and they know all about us” (JD 5:99).

This recognition presented a problem to Church leaders — how to speak freely to Church members, while avoiding the controversy that would come from those outside the Church, who may not be familiar with Church doctrine and practices, and thus misunderstand what was being taught?  And how to speak the “hard doctrines” to members, while avoiding the ridicule from those unaccustomed and unfamiliar with these deep theological ideas?

Brigham Young solved the problem by maintaining tight control over what was published outside Utah.

“Brother Heber says that the music is taken out of his sermons when brother Carrington clips out words here and there; and I have taken out the music from mine, for I know the traditions and false notions of the people.  . . . In printing my remarks, I often omit the sharp words, though they are perfectly understood and applicable here: for I do not wish to spoil the good I desire to do [abroad].  Let my remarks go to the world in a way the prejudices of the people can bear, that they may read them, and ask God whether they are true” (JD 5:99-100).

Brigham Young thus employed editorial license to walk the balance between speaking to Church members while simultaneously knowing that his words, his “sharp words”, might be misunderstood or cause more harm than good among non-members.  By altering the sermons before publication, he watered down the passages that might create controversy and ill-will.

A similar situation occurred with President Gordon B. Hinckley when he was asked by a San Francisco Chronicle reporter if he believed that man could become like God:

Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don’t Mormons believe that God was once a man?
A: I wouldn’t say that. There was a little couplet coined, “As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.” Now that’s more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don’t know very much about.
Q: So you’re saying the church is still struggling to understand this?
A: Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly. We believe that the glory of God is intelligence and whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the Resurrection. Knowledge, learning, is an eternal thing. And for that reason, we stress education. We’re trying to do all we can to make of our people the ablest, best, brightest people that we can.

President Hinckley realized that his words would create ill-will among the non-Mormon community if he forthrightly (and honestly) admitted that the LDS Church has, as one of its core doctrines, the idea that man can become gods.  So, he soft-pedaled his answer in order to avoid that controversy.

But as a result of President Hinckley’s de-emphasis of this important doctrine in this interview and others (TIME magazine published a similar interview with a similar response to the same question), he responded to members of the Church who had read his interview and were confused as to the understanding they had of this important doctrine.  In the following October’s General Conference, President Hinckley addressed these concerns with this statement:

The media have been kind and generous to us. This past year of pioneer celebrations has resulted in very extensive, favorable press coverage. There have been a few things we wish might have been different. I personally have been much quoted, and in a few instances misquoted and misunderstood. I think that’s to be expected. None of you need worry because you read something that was incompletely reported. You need not worry that I do not understand some matters of doctrine. I think I understand them thoroughly, and it is unfortunate that the reporting may not make this clear. I hope you will never look to the public press as the authority on the doctrines of the Church.
It is in the light of these two examples of how previous Church leaders have “controlled the message” that the editing to Elder Packer’s conference talk on homosexuality should be seen.  While it is possible that the edits made to the official version were a signal that Church leadership felt that Elder Packer crossed the line and mis-spoke, more likely is that they were simply employing a technique that has been used since the earliest days of the Church: speak the “sharp words” to the members being addressed, and then omitting them when the same sermons are presented to the world so that the Church’s hard-fought good will can be preserved.

But why is porn consumption so high in Utah?  With its predominantly Mormon culture, one would expect that overall usage would be fairly benign, on par perhaps with Utah’s neighbors.  What is behind this high demand?  Certainly the Mormon Church itself is concerned, having addressed the use of pornography in most General Conferences over the past ten years, as well as numerous Priesthood and Relief Society lesson manuals.  Most discussions of pornography use by Church leaders refer to it as an “addiction”, used primarily by men, and Sunday’s upcoming documentary will frame it in similar terms.

With such states as Utah, Alaska, and Mississippi among the highest consumers of porn, some see a political divide at play, with politically conservative states consuming higher amounts of porn than more liberal states such as New Jersey, Oregon and Connecticut, which are among the lowest users.  But such correlations are seen only when data from the 2008 general election is used, and the hypothesis is not confirmed by 2004 election results.

A closer correlation can be seen when one looks at the religiosity of the states (which also tend to be more politically conservative).  One measure of religious commitment is the passing of laws defending traditional marriage.  Thirty-seven states currently have “Defense of Marriage” acts in their Constitutions or passed through legislative action.  The top ten consuming states are all among those thirty-seven states, while Wyoming and Connecticut, two states with no DOMA legislation, are among the lowest consumers.  States where a high percentage of residents agree with the statement, “I have old-fashioned values about family and marriage,” bought 3.60 more subscriptions per thousand people than states where a majority disagreed.  States where the majority agreed with the statement, “AIDS might be God’s punishment for immoral sexual behavior,” bought 3.56 more subscriptions per thousand people.  Of all the variables tested by Benjamin Edelman in his study, religiosity had the highest correlation factor — the more religious a state’s residents, the higher the rate of subscription to porn sites.

There is little doubt that the prohibitions against pre-marital sex among religious states plays into porn consumption by young adults, including those in Utah.  But consumer data shows that a majority of users in the U.S. are over thirty-five years old (65%), and only 14% of porn is consumed by individuals younger than 25 years old.  Thus, one can assume that the majority of pornography is viewed by married, older individuals, including in Utah.  A Deseret News report on Edelman’s study detailed that the highest usage within Utah were in the 84766 zipcode in Sever County, 84112 in Salt Lake (encompassing the University of Utah), 84018 in Morgan County, 84006 in south-western Salt Lake County (Bingham Canyon), and 84536 in southern Utah near the Arizona border.  With the exception of the zipcode containing the University of Utah, none of the others contain a significantly higher percentage of unmarried young people.  Additionally, the higher than average subscription rates of these counties is unlikely to account for the high usage across the entire State.

Logan psychotherapist Todd Freestone, in the Deseret News article, suggests that Utah’s prohibitions against public purveying of adult magazines, videos, etc., makes on-line viewing more tempting for Utahns — Utah residents simply have fewer places to access pornography in other ways.  But this hypothesis is not supported by the subscription data — states with easy access to pornography such as Nevada and Florida also rank high in subscription rates.  While there is little question that Utah’s access restrictions drive more residents to consume pornography through the internet (and thus to rank higher in Edelman’s data), I suspect that this only partially accounts for Utah’s high ranking.

The LDS Church frames the consumption of pornography much as it does the other problems seen within Utah — high anti-depressant usage by Utahns and high suicide among Utah teens  — as problems in themselves to be addressed.  But I suspect that these issues, including pornography use, find their roots in the Mormon culture.

The problem, I believe, begins with the Mormon marriage ceremony itself.  While being endowed preparatory to being sealed, Mormons are given a pair of “temple garments” and told to wear them both “night and day”.  These garments share characteristics of the nineteenth century Victorian clothing styles they sprang from — solid fabric modestly covering the body from the knees to the shoulders.  The garment is, in my experience, the antithesis of sexy lingerie.   Couples are counseled, through anecdotes and command, to wear the garments “at all times and in all places.”  For most Mormon couples, this includes bed.

Additionally, there was the formal and informal restrictions on the sex act itself.  In an announcement on January 5, 1982, the Church’s First Presidency stated that it “has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure, or unholy practice.”   In answer to the question of how a spouse should respond if their partner wants to try new things, Apostle Boyd K. Packer answered:  “A married couple may be tempted to introduce things into their relationship which are unworthy. Do not, as the scriptures warn, ‘change the natural use into that which is against nature’ (Romans 1:26). If you do, the tempter will drive a wedge between you” (“The Things of My Soul”, Bookcraft; 1st Printing edition (January 1996) ).  Apostle M. Russell Nelson, in a General Conference address, advised against even “talking dirty” in bed with one’s spouse:  “Because it is ordained of God, the intimate physical expressions of married love are sacred. Yet all too commonly, these divine gifts are desecrated. If a couple allows lewd language or pornography to corrupt their intimacy, they offend their Creator while they degrade and diminish their own divine gifts.”

Addresses by Church leaders are filled with admonitions to avoid “unnatural” acts during love-making.  “Who does it hurt? Why not a little freedom? ‘Flee fornication,’ Paul cries, and flee ‘anything like unto it,’ the Doctrine and Covenants adds. The body is something to be kept pure and holy. Do not be afraid of soiling its hands in honest labor. Do not be afraid of scars that may come in defending the truth or fighting for the right, but beware scars that spiritually disfigure, that come to you in activities you should not have undertaken” (Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland, “Personal Purity”, October 1998 General Conference).  Thus, the emphasis in Mormon culture is on traditional, non-exploratory sexual expression.  Use of stimulants such as movies, Victoria Secret outfits, verbal fantasies, toys, etc., are officially and culturally discouraged.  Activities such as couple masturbation, oral and anal sex, role playing, etc., are also frowned upon.  The understanding of the average member is best summarized by “Pinkadot”, in response to a Yahoo question about oral sex:  “We are getting counsel from our leaders. We aren’t “forbidden” to do the things we want. They are trying to help us… maybe people who push the boundaries are going to go further and further and further. Who knows… some people start with something small, then more and more and it’s never enough… it can lead to bad things.”

“Bad things.”  Given the conservative and restricting cultural understanding of sexual expression within Mormonism, is there any question why one or the other (nearly 30% of porn viewers are female) in a Mormon marriage might seek excitement and sexual fulfillment through porn?  The narrow parameters of approved sexual expression within an LDS marriage practically insures it.

If the Church wants to make inroads into Utah’s pornography “addiction”, it should start by changing the norms of expected sexual expression within marriage.  The Church could start by encouraging its members to freely explore mutually agreed upon avenues of expression and satisfaction.  It could change its restrictions on garment use.  It could introduce lessons in Priesthood and Relief Society that celebrate the joy and closeness that results from an open and honest sexual relationship between spouses.  Rather than result in “bad things” happening, I think such a strategy would result in only “good things” happening — better communication between spouses, closer and more fulfilling relationships, and lower pornography consumption.  By removing the many barriers to sexual expression, the Church would relieve most of the natural pressure men and women experience when it comes to sexual urges.  A rational approach must acknowledge that these urges are natural and normal.  By allowing Mormons to feel comfortable focusing that energy towards their spouses in a loving and passionate relationship, fewer members will be forced by spousal and cultural disapproval (shame) to seek fulfillment for those urges elsewhere.