The sixth in a seven part series.

Chapter six of Eternal Man is called ‘Freedom and Fulfillment’, which addresses free will. Questions such as:

In what sense, if at all, is man free?
Does everything that happens, have to happen?
Given the same conditions could I have been or done otherwise?

are presented. Madsen gives what was then some new developments which he felt added some freshness to a long stalemate between determinists and indeterminists.

On the side of determinists, psychologists point to the immense domination of the subconscious by traceable stimuli. The claim is that we are not separable from prior causation. This brings up the question of whether our sense of freedom is simply ignorance of hidden causes.

On the side of indeterminism is the Heisenberg principle. Quantum physics confims that at the sub-atomic level, inanimate particles behave in unpredictable ways. Their behavior can only be expressed in a statistical way. It is a bit like predicting how many people will die on a holiday weekend, but not being able to predict which people. So if these particles are indeterminate, why reject that man is also indeterminate?

Madsen also mentions existential analysis which reveals that in our inner consciousness, we all have a sense of guilt about our past, and a sense of anxiety about our future. If we only act in ways that are unavoidable, then why would we have a sincere sense of guilt?

Madsen again points out an important link which seems to me to be a type of emerging theme of this book. Much of the case for determinism is based on a ‘beginning’ over which we had no control. Whether this is first cause, or nature, or chance, or God. Whatever we are came with or after our ultimate creation – in the beginning. It is the modern revelation that man was also in the beginning with God. Thus man is an eternal co-cause throughout all stages of existence.

Madsen admits that this doctrine of mankind’s freedom and destiny, which includes the innate possibilities of his embryonic nature from his Eternal Father, opens up a hornets nest of philosophical puzzles to complex to address in this book. At this point he looks at some of our everyday reflections on freedom.

What is freedom? We define freedom as a yearning to breathe free, free from pushy parents, blustery policemen, red tape. People will die to defend ‘freedom from’, and ‘freedom for’. We desire to be free to become what we have it in us to become.

Freedom and Law. Madsen asserts that many feel that freedom is opposed to law. But eternally speaking law is the guarantor of freedom. He gives an example of a coin, that when flipped, can land on heads or tails. But if anything can happen, as a result of any action, then freedom is meaningless in coins and men. If we seek to be a law unto ourselves, we become the victims of law rather than the masters of it.

Freedom and responsibility. For freedom to be exercised fully, there must be some knowledge behind it. Otherwise we are just rats in a maze on a pointless quest. This knowledge is what brings responsibility. Some might seek to shirk such responsibility, favoring the fatalism of grace-alone salvation, believing there is nothing that we can do. Madsen observes that we seem fond of blaming others for who we have chosen to be. He hypothetically suggest that the devil must have had delinquent parents. But the chain of blame always comes back to us – even the addict that says he can’t help it – at one point could have helped it.

Freedom to change. Madsen brings up an acorn analogy that can become an oak. We also are destined to become what it is in our nature to become. But because of our intelligent initiative we will sometimes go astray. Christ’s role is to break the bonds of our diminished freedoms, and reenthrone our potential becoming. In crucial ways, only Christ can do this. But he can not, if we will not. We must seek him with the measure of control that we have. This measure is always more than zero.

Freedom and commitment. Madsen asks the question ‘is freedom increase by every new flavor of ice cream’? His point is that real freedom comes from making voluntary eternal covenants. Once these covenants are made they free us from making the same kinds of decisions over, and over again. He then asks why the Father and the Son can not break their part of the covenant? It is because they have made these covenants to express this love and freedom to the blessing of the entire human family. Man is in the imitation of the divine, and his freedom is the boldest, most powerful, most exciting commitment possible. We chose, and have been chosen for, divine sonship, and only if we turn against it, will we avoid the ever widening circles of freedom called Eternal life.

Chapter five of ‘Eternal Man’ by Truman Madsen is on Evil and Suffering. Madsen concedes that the most staggering objection to a personable God is the overwhelming fact of human inequality and suffering. He then gives a few examples of extreme suffering. For most believers in God, they resort to believing that the ways of God are strange and inscrutable. Some religions go so far as to deny evil. Others find it difficult to not assign evil to God. For one there is no problem, for the other there is no hope.

This chapter is a unique chapter in that most of it is a hypothetical conversation between a woman with a baby that was born blind and paralyzed, and Joseph Smith. Madsen has such a gift for poetic descriptions that I can not hope to match. Yet, I do not wish to simply retype this conversation. If you want the full conversation, buy the book. I will attempt to provide the basics of this conversation in my usual simple way.

Mother: Is my suffering an illusion?

JS: Suffering is real, and we cannot escape it. Christ did not.

Mother: Why did God not prevent this? What have I done to deserve this?

JS: Suffering is not divine punishment. God can induce and prevent some suffering, but not all.

Mother: Is God not all powerful? How can we have faith in a limited God?

JS: How can we have faith in the unconditioned and absolute God of the creeds? They would say that God could have created a utopia with no suffering or pain, but instead he elected to subject humanity to suffering in this life, and for many, endless suffering. All this with an absolute foreknowledge. Many call such a God ‘Monstrous’, Christians call Him ‘inscrutable’. Thank God that revelation says that no such God exists.

Mother: But if God is not behind all suffering, what is? Is there another explanation?

JS: Yes. You have been taught that God is the total cause of everything. In truth He is not the total cause of anything. God has always been surrounded by us. We are co-eternal intelligences. The creeds say that God has always been God, but this is a travesty. God became God by mastery of the same ultimate and unchanging conditions that we are subject to. Likewise His Firstborn Son, Jesus Christ. It is not possible for God to give us experience, without us going through the experience. We can not become like Him without suffering.

Mother: Why do some suffer more than others?

JS: We are all equal when it comes to God’s love. We are all equal before eternal law. But in our original natures we are uncreated, and unequal. Individual differences result in individual needs. God can not transform Satan into Christ or Christ into Satan with a wave of a wand.

Mother: But why has God thrown us into this world with so much suffering?

JS: You assume that God alone accounts for you being here, and that your suffering is final. You freely agreed to come to earth knowing the risks involved. You recognized that the trials of life would be worth it.

Mother: But did not Christ come to relieve all suffering?

JS: Christ came to end needless suffering, and that suffering can result in a greater good.

Mother: Was His sacrifice necessary?

JS: Yes. And as we approach Him in the midst of our suffering, the more we can love as He loves, and the less we suffer needlessly.

Mother: It is so hard.

JS: Yes, but it also beautiful. As you go through this pain, you can realize that you are in God’s hands. He may not remove you from the fiery furnace, but he will see you through it. And you will not needlessly suffer in vain. Even from the smoldering rubble you can arise, through Christ, to an incredible shining joy, in the image of Christ, who is in the image of God, who has Himself overcome all things! There is no other way.

Chapter four of Eternal Man has to do with the spirit and the body. Madsen begins by presenting three statements from Joseph Smith:

- We came into this world that we might receive a body and present it pure before God in the celestial kingdom.
- The great principle of happiness consists in having a body.
- All beings who have bodies have power over those who have not.

He follows his usual pattern by repeating baffling questions like – Why is man embodied? Has the body a lasting purpose in nature or in the plan of God?

Madsen claims the answers to these questions have been badly blurred by the dogma of immaterialism which dominates both Judaism and Christianity. These assumptions lead to a dualism of nature, one material, the other immaterial. The mind/soul/spirit are immaterial and the body is material. For many this dualism is quite radical – the soul has none of the qualities of the body and vice versa. The soul is real, eternal and good. The body is less real, temporal and evil.

A host of questions arise from this: How can two entities that have nothing in common, not even space and time, be conjoined in any sense? How does one influence the other? Why would an unembodied God create an embodied man to achieve a disembodied immortality?

Physicalists deny the soul. Man is nothing but nucleic acids, cell structures, and nerve nets. Immaterialists assume that only through immaterialism can God and religion be saved.

Once again, Joseph Smith faces a confusing colossus, and with revelatory insight replaces it. The revolution is that mind, spirit and body are all material, in varying degrees of refinement. They all have an equal status in spacio-temporal existence and are of equal worth.

This is not just semantics, it leads to a complete revision of attitudes regarding mankind. Madsen then gives an interesting comparison between some prevailing thoughts and the teachings of Joseph Smith.

Immaterialists teach that man was created in a body to prepare for a nontemporal eternity.

Joseph Smith taught that we are living in a temporal eternity and that our intelligences, spirits and bodies will have permanence in the resurrection.

Physicalists teach that there is no spirit, and that personality can be reduced to genes.

Joseph Smith taught that the spirit personality developed long before our physical embodiment, and has a profound affect.

Extreme immaterialists despise ‘body, parts, and passions’ and define God as lacking them. They disparage and renounce the body.

Extreme physicalists teach that the body is all there is, and that it is the only source for happiness.

Joseph Smith taught that man’s body and spirit are marvelously perfectible. He taught that spirituality is enhanced by the body, and that only when the spirit and the body are inseparably connected can there be a fullness of joy.

Of the Fallen

One may well ask if mankind are not ‘fallen’ and ‘carnal, sensual, and devilish’? Yes, and yes. But the way to sanctification is IN the body, not OUT of it. Thus the inspired way of Christ is a regeneration, an inspired expression, and way of life rather than a renunciation, emasculation and way of death.

Price of Anguish

 There are all kinds of self-help books and psychotherapy chronicles that document the miseries of mankind fighting against themselves. How can people find something meaningful, wholesome, or spiritual when they are being told that the body is a nasty, brutish sack or a supersensual castle?

 It is the truth re-revealed through Joseph Smith that once again declares that the body of man is a living temple for the Spirit of God. This redeeming truth declares that Jesus Christ lived and died not only to heal, lift, and fulfill all men, but all of man – the intelligence, spirit and body.

Chapter three of Eternal Man is ‘Creation and Procreation’. Madsen begins by providing a poetic writing by Joseph Smith:

And I heard a great voice bearing record from Heav’n,
He’s the Saviour, and Only Begotten of God-
By him, of him, and through him, the worlds were all made,
Even all that career in the heavens so broad.
Whose inhabitants, too, from the first to the last,
Are sav’d by the very same Saviour of ours;
And, of course, are begotten God’s daughters and sons,
By the very same truths, and the very same pow’rs.

Madsen then asks – ‘But is Divine fatherhood in any sense similar to human fatherhood’? He mentions what he feels is the one important similarity. It is that in both Divine and human fatherhood there is a transmission of traits and attributes. He then offers two anticipated objections to this assertion.

1 – Anthropomorphism. Taking biblical phrases like Jesus’ ‘My father and your father’, or Paul’s ‘offspring of God’ and ‘Father of spirits’ literally apply manlike qualities to God. Such ‘Fatherhood’ connotes a finite, material God who is subject to space and time. Traditional Christianity finds these traits absurd, and feel that they destroy the dignity and unconditioned ultimacy of God.

 2 – Psychologism. The idea of Divine Fatherhood is here objectionable because of our tendency to project our own mortal ‘father-image’ onto God.

 Milton is then referenced for his claims to inspired poetry. He felt the Bible was seriously literal in what it says about the fatherhood of God. He felt that there was no radical distinction between spirit and matter, and that there was a point-by-point analogy between heaven and earth. He asks ‘Why should we be afraid to ascribe to God what He ascribes to Himself’?

 Madsen then points out how inept the fear of Divine parenthood is in Christendom. If God can transmit his attributes through Mary, a human being, to the body of Christ, then why is it unthinkable that He could transmit attributes and spirit traits to immortal spirits? Why would this be any less dignified?

 Conquest of a Paradox

 Madsen then considers the creation paradox: An immaterial Trinity elicited from nothing both material and immaterial substance. The unchanging and unchangeable Deity yet changed and continues to change the whole of reality. A nontemporal and nonspatial being – literally nowhere and nowhen, created everywhere and everywhen. The All-powerful and All-good Deity absolutely brought into being mankind, angels, demons and Satan. Of such is the creation paradox. The teachings of Joseph Smith, like the ancient prophets, are involved in none of these paradoxes.

 Reverent or Irreverent

 It is tempting to think of Divine parenthood as being quite irreverent. We see mortal weakness and corruption in earthly parenthood and wonder how God could be involved in anything similar. Many therefore conclude that God could not be a person or personable, let alone a parent.

 Madsen asserts that nothing in the universe is more lofty than personality. Calling God ‘Unconditioned’ may idolize but it does not deify. When Jesus says, ‘I ascend unto my Father, and your Father’ what does he mean? If there is revulsion to a literal meaning does this revulsion come out of the revelations of God, or out of tradition and guilt?

 Things More Noble

 What is the appeal to a doctrine of Divine parenthood?

 Madsen offers that all of us crave an infinite, certain, ultimate, rich, abiding, undergirding, trustworthy love. What greater sense of love could there be than that of one who believes in Divine parenthood? Man has often believed that somehow God could be in his heart. But now he may realize that godliness in engrained through him by divine lineage. A father and a mother looking down at their sleeping infant commune in a sacred parental love. Such love is a shining light with a wealth of poignant insights that follow in its wake. A parent/child relationship with the divine with feelings of gratitude, virtue, sympathy, peace and motivation replace grosser emotions of fear, distant awe, dread, solitude, even despair.

 This is the flame that is rekindled when Joseph Smith testified in the 20^th century what Jesus did in the first, that God is our Father.

Chapter two of ‘Eternal Man’ has to do with the our origins. Joseph Smith taught that man as a primal intelligence is eternal. The spirit-elements that compose man’s Divinely-sired spirit and the matter-elements that compose the body are also eternal. The destiny of these elements are to be inseparably connected throughout eternity.

 Some elements of these ideas are indeterminate, but Madsen provides four characterizations:

 Individuality – Man is never wholly identified with any other being, nor is he the product of nothing.
Autonomy – The self is free to act for itself.
Consciousness – There is no inanimate intelligence or unconscious mind.
Capacity – All minds and spirits are susceptible of enlargement.

Few of us realize how radical these ideas are. They are staggering. They challenge both established religious dogma and leading secular viewpoints. Madsen offers these implications:

The quantity of souls is fixed and infinite.
There is no beginning to us.
Mind has no birthday.
No one is older or younger than anyone else.
We have always been separate from, and coexistent with other intelligences.
Creation is never totally original.
Immortality is not conditional – it is inevitable and universal.
Death does not destroy the self.
Suicide is just a change of scenery.
No self can change completely into another thing.
No one will ever lose their mind or consciousness.
Nothing is something we never were and never will be.

Contrasting Views

 Orthodox Christendom

 In traditional Christianity man is derived from nothing and is completely contingent on creation ex nihilo by the fiat act of God. Everything except God is derived from total non-being. Hence, God is directly responsible for all that man is and does. Calvin faced this inevitable consequence squarely. He denied all freedom, asserting that all acts were the acts of God. Others have held that God created man (from nothing) for His own purposes, yet man is still (somehow) responsible for his salvation.

 Madsen summarizes that within orthodox Christianity:

Creation is the absolute and mysterious act of God
Free will is denied or foreshortened
Consciousness and enlargement opportunities are focused on mortality

 Existentialism

 In existentialism, man is derived from nothing, is now almost nothing, and is destined to be nothing. Creation is a mystery of self-creation, freedom is absolute and within the limits of ‘being’. Consciousness is agony and enlargement is meaningless. In the ‘big picture’ life can be nothing but pessimistic. It is religion of much nothing and nothing much.

 Humanism

 In humanism man comes from something, and returns to something. This something is nothing more than dust which is almost nothing. Man is to the cosmos what a train whistle is to a train. The origins of man are explained by a blend of Darwin and microbiology. Mind is an accident and will soon return to matter. Creation is a shifting of molecules. Freedom is a term for our ignorance in the causes that determine us.

 Conclusion

 If Mormonism is true, than the positions on the origins of man provided by orthodox Christianity, existentialists, and humanists are all false. The question is not ‘to be or not to be?’, because no one can choose to be or not to be. Everyone simply and eternally is – an individual, free, conscious, and enlargeable. ‘Nothing’ is not the source of, a threat to, or the destiny of man.

 The real question is ‘to become more or not to become more?’. This view presents the best and inescapable need for God and a Savior. Since what we become is largely the product of our own choices, and not the absolute creation of God, the need for a Savior is more clear.

 I agree with Madsen so far on all of this. I am not sure about the number of souls being both fixed and infinite, but I suppose that is one of the indeterminate aspects of this line of thought. But I really like the part about how this view supports a belief in free will/free agency, and presents the absolute need for a savior so clearly.

Truman Madsen wrote a series of essays that was eventually published in book form under the title of Eternal Man. I have come to find out that I favor the theological ideas of B. H. Roberts and Truman Madsen, and I would like to provide a review of this book for my own benefit if nobody else’s. Chapter 1 of the book serves as an introduction and outline for the rest of the book. I would like to encourage discussion and comments on any of these reviews.

Madsen begins this chapter titled ‘Whence Cometh Man’ by claiming that the most revolutionary set of axioms of religion have been provided by revelation to Joseph Smith. These are:

A – Man and woman are not derived from the void. They are beginningless. Their primal existence, as uncreated and indestructible intelligences, is everlasting.

B – The ‘creation’ of spirit or soul is not a fiat act at the time of mortal conception or birth. It is really Divine procreation in the world of glory.

C – Physical birth in mortality is not totally at the initiative of God the Father. It is in part the result of premortal, individual election and foresight which are in harmony with uncreated law.

He rightly states that most members of the church fall in two camps about these ideas. One camp feels that such ideas are so remote and incomplete that a practical person avoids talking about them. The other camp feels that these ideas easily explain all events and eventualities. I suspect it is most healthy to be somewhere in-between.

Madsen then gives some brief glimpses into the implied answers to philosophical puzzles that grow out of the above statements.

The Problem of Identity

Might I cease to be? Is there anything permanent about me?

The axioms above suggest that our conscious, purposive existence is guaranteed forever. While we may progress through stages, selfhood remains – and extinction is impossible.

The Paradox of Creation

How can I be anything except what God made me? How could an unchanging, immaterial First Cause bring a tangible me into existence?

There is no creation from nothing. Elements may be ordered from simple to complex, but we are not just a product. We are an originator. We are coexistent and coeternal with God. In the ultimate sense we were not created, but have always been in existence.

The Mind-Body Problem

Is one part of me more important? Is mind reducible to matter, or matter to mind?

Madsen forwards a tripartite model of existence – intelligence, spirit, and body. The spirit in Mormonism is not some ghost, but also a material entity. The idea that the spirit and the body are somewhat similar in nature, as opposed to being radically different. Thus mystical denials of the reality of the material world, and ethical castigations of the human body as utterly evil are seen as extreme delusions.

The Problem of Human Freedom

In Mormonism, freedom is not created. We are, and always will be, independent in the stage of development that our voluntary decisions have led. There are limits to what we can do, but we are not a billiard ball. No power in the universe can coerce our complete assent or dissent. This dissolves the absolute wall between Deity and man. It also undercuts behaviorists, mechanists, fatalists, and predestinationists. Some say that a belief in free will requires a pre-existence. Identifying free will with the eternal intelligence does that.

The Problem of Evil

Why are there inequalities? How can God be good and all powerful yet permit suffering?

God is not responsible for the limits of uncreated element, nor for the principles of the gospel plan. It is by application of these principles that he became what He is, not by some cosmic accident. Likewise he aids all of us. God the Father and Jesus Christ have the power to enable us to climb above tragedy into everlasting joy.

We were not thrown into the world, but did ask to be born. We might have avoided mortality – billions of others did. These ideas exonerate God from man’s inhumanity to man.

The problem of Self-Awareness

How can I know my real self?

With the idea of preexistence, knowing yourself becomes something of recollection instead of research – recovery rather than discovery. This happens in three main ways:

Inspired introspection
Revelation to prophets
Patriarchal blessings

When it comes to the problem of self awareness, preexistence makes all the difference. Madsen ends by quoting Joseph Smith’s statement that if men do not comprehend God, they do not comprehend themselves. And then asks what of the man who really comprehends himself.

Heavenly Father,

Could you please help me find my golf ball?  I know it is around here somewhere.  I’ve looked everywhere, and it is time to either find the ball, or take a penalty stroke and a drop.  Could you PLEASE help me find the ball?

In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

I say about 795 prayers like the one above every summer.  I find that they ‘work’ about half the time.  By ‘work’ I mean that after I say such a prayer, I find the ball.  I have never received an answer to these prayers like, ‘The ball is behind the pine tree on the left’, or, ‘I know where the ball is, but I am not telling you’.

When I do find the ball, I always thank God for helping me find it.  You know, just in case.  And when I don’t find the ball, I never blame God for not helping me.  I just take my stroke, drop a new ball, and play on.

I’m not sure what this means about prayer, God, or myself.  But I still like golf - no matter how many golf balls I go through every summer.

 Many members of the church seem to have a contradiction in their beliefs and attitudes when it comes to patriarchal blessings and the foreknowledge of God.

Patriarchal blessings are usually a once in a lifetime priesthood blessing given by a stake patriarch to a member of the church. This can be done at any time, but is typically done during the teenage years. These blessings declare the lineage of the individual as a member of the House of Isreal, and often give certain guidance and blessings regarding the future of the recipient. These blessings are often very important to members of the church, and they consider them to be a form of personal revelation for their life.

Most members of the church will acknowledge that this blessing is no guarantee. We need to do our part in living the gospel, and making good choices in life for these blessing to really happen. Thus the blessing may be a type of ‘best case’ scenario for our lives that is contingent on our behavior.

I think this is a proper and healthy attitude to take regarding these blessings. But, it does seem to contradict what many members believe regarding the foreknowledge of God. There are many members who feel that God knows the future perfectly, and that he knows this future because the past, present and future are before him in a type of eternal ‘now’. I sort of felt this way a few years ago myself, so I can’t blame my fellow church members for feeling this way. Especially when a few scriptures, and statements by people like Neal Maxwell suggest that very thing.

My guess is that many church members do not think about this apparent contradiction in the least, and thus it remains.

My oldest son turned sixteen a couple of weeks ago.  This is the age that young men can be ordained as Priests in the Aaronic Priesthood.  This carries with it the authority to baptize, but more frequently the opportunity to bless the sacrament in our weekly worship services.  I was pleased to be able to ordain him to that office.

We live in a small and spread out ward in southern Michigan.  And we frequently will need to scramble to find people to help with the sacrament.  Sometimes we have enough young men, sometimes we don’t.  My son thought that the chances of him being asked to bless the sacrament were pretty high.  Because of this, he read over the sacrament prayers several times during the week.

Sure enough, on his first Sunday as a priest, there were no other priests on time for church.  And he was asked if he would handle the blessing of the sacrament.  He looked as white as a ghost and said that he was not ready.  I offered to go up with him, and we could bless the sacrament as father and son.  He cautiously agreed.

While we were sitting behind the sacrament table, and the announcements were being given, I began explaining how things were usually done in the blessing of the sacrament.  And I pointed out where the cards were that contained the sacrament prayers.  I explained that these prayers need to be word-for-word.  I suggested that he read really slow, and to read every word.  He then asked me what I found a profound question.  He asked, “How am I supposed to read it with my eyes shut?”

This explains why he was so nervous.  He thought that he had to have these prayers memorized perfectly, and that if he didn’t get it right he would have to try it over and over again in front of everybody.

This also explains my oldest boy.  He is a blindly obedient young man.  He has been told that you close your eyes during the prayer, and he does that, every time, without exception.

I am not sure how ‘heroic’ this all is, but when I consider his mindset going into this experience, and his willingness to go up there in spite of this, I am quite proud of him.  Well done, son.

There is no more frequent and stern warning given by leaders to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints than to avoid pornography. One only needs to go to lds.org and do a General Conference search on pornography to get quite a list of talks on the subject. It seemed to be of particular importance to former president Gordon B. Hinckley.

While the church has been appropriately ‘heavy’ on the evils of pornography, they have also (in my opinion) been ‘light’ on how one can break the addictive habit. I was very pleased to see that the book, ‘The Brain the Changes Itself’ addresses pornography to some length. One section ended with the hopeful conclusion:

As for the patients who became involved in porn, most were able to go cold turkey once they understood the problem and how they were plastically reinforcing it. They found that they were attracted once again to their mates…they stopped using their computers for a period to weaken their problematic neuronal networks, and their appetite for porn withered away. (p. 130)

It is my hope to help those who may struggle with this addiction. I hope that by passing along something about the nature of the problem, and it’s plastic reinforcement, someone may benefit by kicking the pornography habit.

Pornography, delivered by high speed Internet connections, satisfies all of the prerequisites for plastic change in the brain. Some may feel that pornography is something of an instinctual matter, and the result of millions of years of evolution. But pornography is more of a dynamic phenomenon, and is something of an acquired taste.

Pornography addiction is a progressive addiction. At first one gets hooked on what may be called ‘soft’ pornography. But over time, this will not be enough. And the addict will progress on to more, and more ‘hard’ porn. This same progression is seen over the years in society, as pornography from decades ago is different and ‘lesser’ than what can be seen today.

The growth of the porn industry in extraordinary. It accounts for 25 percent of all video rentals, and is the fourth most common reason people give for going on line. An MSNBC survey found that 80 percent of viewers felt that they were spending so much time on pornographic sites that they were putting their relationships and jobs at risk. All this porn has it’s affect. As Dr. Doidge points out:

Yet the plastic influence of pornography on adults can be quite profound, and those who use it have no sense of the extent to which their brains are reshaped by it. (p. 103)

Dr. Doidge treated a number of men who had the same story – they had acquired a taste for pornography that troubled and disgusted them. This habit had a disturbing affect on their sexual excitement and a negative impact on their relationships. These men were not fundamentally immature, socially awkward, or withdrawn. They were pleasant, thoughtful men with successful relationships.

These men get hooked by some playboy type site or picture. It may be through an e-mail, what might look like a harmless web site, or some other source. But they find themselves hooked. After getting hooked, they begin to have difficulty being turned on by their actual partners, though they still found them objectively attractive. Initially the pornography helped, but had the opposite long term affect.

This pattern continues as one builds a tolerance for porn. Pornographers may boast about how they are being creative by pushing the envelope by introducing harder themes. But what they do not tell you is that they must push the envelope because of the tolerance that is built in their customers. These customers (mostly men) often experience a type of impotence. But not the kind that developed from aging or blocked blood vessels in the penis. The problem is in their brain.

The addiction to pornography is no metaphor. And as with other addictions there can be no safe moderation. The addiction comes from the release of dopamine into the pleasure centers of the brain. The brain becomes sensitized to this release of dopamine, and begins to crave it. Thus the vicious cycle – a sensitized craving for dopamine creating the desire for more porn, combined with the tolerance to porn requiring new and harder porn.

Pornography is more appetitive and exciting than it is satisfying, and since it is dopamine related it raises the tension level. This is in contrast to the satisfaction pleasure centers of the brain which attends having actual sex with your partner, which is an endorphin based release that brings a calm and peaceful bliss.

So, like rats in an experiment, people sit in front of their computers, clicking the mouse to get the addictive release of dopamine into the pleasure centers of the brain. They are seduced by this pornographic training session which brings plastic change to their brain maps. This can bring about a type of sexual impotence and damage important relationships.

So, how to break the habit? It must start with a strong desire to change. One must then recognize pornography for the harmful addiction that it is. One must also realize that there is no safe moderation for one so addicted. Make a clean and complete break from the habit, staying away from the computer entirely for a couple of months if necessary. I would add that praying for forgiveness, and for strength from the spirit will help as well.

I hope that we can heed the important warnings from modern day prophets and avoid this destructive addiction.

(Note:  This is the third in a series on Brain Plasticity.  Earlier posts are here and here.)