Addiction

He Restoreth My Soul Chapter Two

A review and response to the book "He Restoreth My Soul: Understanding and Breaking the Chemical and Spiritual Chains of Pornography Addiction Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ" by Donald L. Hilton Jr., MD (Neurosurgeon).

This response addresses chapter two, "What Is Addiction?" pgs. 7–12.

Ambiguous, Opinion and Tangential

It would be reasonable to expect that a medical doctor specializing in neurosurgery, in a chapter called, "what is addiction?" would include a well-informed, formulated, medically-sound definition and explanation of addiction. But the reader is void of any such clarity. Instead, Hilton interjects ambiguity, opinion and tangential reasoning, which has little to no relevance to addiction or porn as an addictive behavior. The inadequacy of this chapter is embarrassing, let alone completely baffling for a medical doctor to have authored.

Defining Pornography

Hilton presumptuously and arbitrarily defines pornography as, "anything that induces an inappropriate sexual interest for that person."

This statement is potentially one of the most blatant evidences of Hilton's ignorance and inexperience on the topics of addiction and pornography. Nonetheless, his lack of experience aside, as a trained medical professional, I am confused as to how he can assert this as a "functional definition." It lacks complete functionality. As mentioned in chapter one's response, he leverages familiar terminology within the LDS culture but fails to deliver substance. This is far from a functional definition.

First, "anything that induces an inappropriate sexual interest" is completely subjective, cultural, individual and familial. Who defines "inappropriate"? The bishop? A therapist? Parents? Society?

For example, a 19-year-old woman meets with me regarding her confusion regarding "inappropriate" sexual thoughts and behavior. For the last three years she had been concerned with particular thoughts and behavior, which she at first thought were normal and "appropriate." However, after talking with her bishop a few years ago, he expressed a heighten concern and took "preventive" measures to prevent the behavior from escalating.

Although the young woman wasn't spiritually concerned and was only talking with her bishop because she felt it was the right thing to do, the bishop’s response made her feel she was committing a serious sin. Now, three years later she is experiencing anxiety and spiritual confusion. What complicates this situation more is how her new bishop at college has responded to the behavior. The young woman said the bishop "was not concerned in the least" with her thoughts and behavior. In fact, he emphasized that it was normal and not something to be concerned about.

In another example, one young man sought treatment for his "pornography addiction" and "inappropriate sexual interest." This young man at 14 experienced a life transition when his parent remarried and the step parent moved in with a 16-year-old daughter. In his words, she was beautiful and he was experiencing "inappropriate sexual interest." At an age when his erections are unpredictable and frequent, it was difficult for him to keep his mind "pure." He had no desire to be inappropriate, and he didn't act out any feelings; in fact, he ended up locking himself in his room most of the time to avoid any potential "thoughts." Based off Hilton's definition, this young man is experiencing porn.

Many adolescence and adults believe they are experiencing pornography based on the subjective definitions of other people. One couple had an agreement to not go to either the beach or the gym. The wife expressed concern that her husband seeing other women in bikinis would trigger inappropriate thoughts. The husband had the same concern for his wife going to the gym and seeing men lifting without a shirt.

Second, Hilton fails to understand the contradictory nature of his opening paragraph when he further states, "Each person knows in his own heart what is a temptation for him, and that is the true test." What?! That is your functioning definition of pornography?! He just made a highly subjective statement of "anything that induces an inappropriate sexual interest" then leaves it up to the individual to determine what is inappropriate. Hilton's profound lack of understanding human nature, cultural influences and family dynamics on an individual is glaring. As you will discover, this lack of understanding feeds into every aspect of his book.

Third, it’s no surprise Hilton’s "functioning definition of pornography" is incoherent and unscientific because there is NO functioning definition of pornography.

If you ask a thousand people to define pornography, you'll get a thousand different answers. It is the only treated "illness" that has no specific definition of the problem or recovery. Mark Kim Malan, Ph.D. addressed this significant problem in A New Taxonomy: Scientific Misuse of the Term "Pornography", the following are extracts from his paper.

"Since the term ‘pornography’ has no agreed upon scientific definition, and since it has evolved into a term associated with pejorative bias, what terminology can scientists use to replace the term ‘pornography with a more accurate unbiased variable?

Efforts to answer this question led to examining not only the many various definitions of the term ‘pornography’, but also when it is used as various parts of speech. Such usage effectively expands and multiplies its definitions. Usually the term is used as a noun to define an object, for example when a photograph is called pornography. But also, it is sometimes used with an adjective to describe an object, usually in a pejorative way. An example would be the term ‘political pornography.’ A third approach is using the term to express individual subjective interpretation of an object. In this case pornography is modified into an adjective to describe another noun. The statement, ‘The Edsel, was simply a “pornographic automobile design”,’ would qualify as such an expression."

Dr. Mark Kim Malan continues to explain in his paper,

"Historically the term ‘pornography’ has an unreliable history of usefulness as a scientific term. Instead, it is a social construct of the human mind. Its social use is vague, inaccurate and is often co-opted for use as rhetoric by those who use it to further their social or political agendas. Over time the term has taken on negative connotations, and is now, also used as a pejorative term, in expressions of disapproval. The term ‘pornography’ is like using the term ‘lemon’ to describe an automobile. It describes a negative quality of an object in the minds of many people.

Sexual scientists look ridiculous, at best, and unethical at worst, when we refer to therapeutic depictions of healthy sexual behavior as ‘healthy pornography’. To the public, who colloquially views the term as a pejorative expression, the term ‘healthy pornography’ becomes an oxymoron. To the public, it is a contradiction in terms. It is like hearing the term ‘healthy poison’.

The term ‘pornography’ has socially evolved over time into a negative term. It has become ‘sexy stuff’ with bad press. Now is the time for scientists to break a bad habit of using this socially biased, non-scientific term. As scientists we create problems for ourselves when we adopt unscientific terminology that has culturally evolved, and is loaded with cultural or moralistic bias. We handicap the social effectiveness of our research when we use such terms.

The term ‘pornography’ is not going to go away. The public, politicians, moralists and the press will continue to use it to promote their agendas. Replacing the term ‘pornography’ with ‘sexually explicit material’ is a step in the right direction, but still the problem remains of who decides what is ‘sexually explicit’. This term, like ‘pornography’ is a subjective interpretation of an object, or group of objects.

As a solution, I am proposing this taxonomy of objects and subjective human response, for use in naming, and specifically defining objects as scientific variables. Instead of using the term ‘pornography’, I suggest naming objects and the human subjective responses to them in a more specific and standardized way, using this taxonomy as a guide.

When others use the term ‘pornography’ in dialog with us, we can simply respond by stating facts: ‘The term “pornography” is not scientific. There is no agreed upon scientific definition. It is more scientifically accurate to talk about specific objects and how individuals subjectively respond to them’. It is our responsibility to teach the public to be accurate and think in scientific terms."

Defining Addiction – Wait what just Happened?

The reader is left to fill in a void as wide as the Atlantic as Hilton transition from a "functional definition" of pornography to a "structural definition" of addiction. Is he suggesting any and all pornography is a form of addiction? What is he saying? This is HUGE! Am I an addict?!

Nonetheless, Hilton fails again at any reasonable or coherent attempt to define "addiction." Instead, he quotes a "structural definition" of addiction, from what appears to be a random article in a journal published in 1979! "Addiction represents a pathological, yet powerful, form of learning and memory."  (Memory deficits associated with senescence: a neurophysiological and behavioral study in the rat)

First, this is in no way a structural definition of addiction. At best, it’s an outdated hypothesis describing the potential effects of hard drug use.

Second, literally no clinician refers to, defines or explains "addiction" in this way. Furthermore, this is completely tangential. Hilton is making a false assumption and unsupported conclusion that hard drug use is the same as porn use.

Third, Hilton confuses and uses "process (behavior) addictions," compulsion, chemical addiction and sin interchangeably.

"Applying this definition (structural) to pornography, addiction is simply a repetitive behavior which damages the person and others in his life and which the person is unable to stop." (pg. 6)

Aside from this being a poor and problematic definition of addiction, this more closely describes a process/behavior addiction. Or rather, an unhealthy habit. His statement, "addiction is simply a repetitive behavior which damages … " suggests habit and is also confusing in the context of the chapter and book. Is the action "simply a repetitive behavior" that causes damage? Or is it,

"The impaired thinking alters the belief system, and the acting out becomes the drug that reinforces the impaired beliefs … . [the] Brain chemicals and the adversary synergistically act in an unholy alliance of soul-searing destruction." (pg. 11)

This definition, also problematic and not how medical or professionals refer to chemical addiction, is more closely aligned with substance abuse.

Also, take note of the unnecessary use of the adversary in this definition. This is a foreshadowing of the frequent misuses of the gospel to elicit fear. Hilton solidifies his ignorance regarding human behavior and the gospel with each similar statement. What value does he think he is providing by emphasizing "the adversary synergistically act in an unholy alliance of soul-searing destruction"?

Sin and the adversary's power is a function of our agency, not a biological impairment. This narrative of Satan and brain chemicals isn't unique to Hilton. It’s a popular pop-psychology idea adopted by inexperienced therapists and treatment organizations. For the purpose of drawing in the "religious" element of addiction, this topic is so convoluted and pervasive that I will need to address it throughout the various chapters. In short, this is a perfect example of men wresting the scriptures, mingling science, religion and the concepts of men. It’s damaging and destructive; ironically this misuse causes much unneeded "soul-searing destruction."

For example, a young man sat in my office with a blank look on his face. This kid was known as a model youth, charismatic, loving of the gospel and serving fully in his callings; however, as he sat and described the horrific despair and soul-crushing fear he possessed, one would have thought he committed the unpardonable sin, or murder. In his words, he was "evil." Why? Because he was "addicted" to pornography. This young man was on the verge of losing all hope. He is not alone; this is not an exception.

Although his porn use was habitual, it wasn't an addiction — far from it. But according to Hilton and his bishop, both untrained to provide this type of counseling, had nonetheless convinced this young man he was in danger of losing his salvation and being controlled/possessed by the adversary. After working with this young man, although his porn use was still being addressed, he returned to the joyful and hopeful teen he once was. By unlearning concepts like Hilton's statement, this teen is now on a path to recovery.

Habits, compulsion, chemical addiction and sin are sometimes overlapped. But they are NOT the same, these behaviors will be addressed why its critical to understand the difference for successful treatment. Hilton's failure and even neglect to define or adequately explain addiction is abysmal. Not a single reference to scientific literature, diagnostics manuals or research. He doesn't provide any clarity or insight in this chapter on "addiction". The reader is left to believe, whether they have had one "inappropriate" sexual thought or many, are addicts like those using hard drugs.

What does the medical field actually say about porn "addiction"? 

Hilton's beliefs are not only wrong scientifically, he is going against the teachings of our leaders. Elder Dallin H. Oaks has said,

"We recognize these different levels, we also recognize that not everyone who uses pornography willfully is addicted to it. In fact, most young men and young women who struggle with pornography are not addicted. That is a very important distinction to make—not just for the parents, spouses, and leaders who desire to help but also for those who struggle with this problem." (Recovering from the Trap of Pornography)

Elder Oaks embraced a more scientific and correct view of (1) inadvertent exposure, (2) occasional use, (3) intensive use, and (4) compulsive use (addiction). Hilton on the other hand doesn't believe in such varying degrees of use.

As for the scientific definitions, neither of the two official medical classifications and diagnostic manuals, the ICD-11 (International Classification of Disease, used as a coding manual in healthcare) or the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM 5 or the DSM-IV-TR) contain a diagnosis for porn or sexual addiction.

This is a critical fact that Hilton neglects to address in this chapter. Its very possibly why he avoided the topic at all.

The most recent addition to the ICD-11 allows for a classification of "Compulsive sexual behavior disorder." This is a critical distinction from "addiction."

"Compulsive sexual behaviour disorder is characterized by a persistent pattern of failure to control intense, repetitive sexual impulses or urges resulting in repetitive sexual behaviour. Symptoms may include repetitive sexual activities becoming a central focus of the person’s life to the point of neglecting health and personal care or other interests, activities and responsibilities; numerous unsuccessful efforts to significantly reduce repetitive sexual behaviour; and continued repetitive sexual behaviour despite adverse consequences or deriving little or no satisfaction from it. The pattern of failure to control intense, sexual impulses or urges and resulting repetitive sexual behaviour is manifested over an extended period of time (e.g., 6 months or more), and causes marked distress or significant impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. Distress that is entirely related to moral judgments and disapproval about sexual impulses, urges, or behaviours is not sufficient to meet this requirement." 6C72 Compulsive sexual behaviour disorder

Take note of the very specific language used in this classification, particularly to the last sentence: "Distress that is entirely related to moral judgments and disapproval about sexual impulses, urges, or behaviours is not sufficient to meet this requirement." Hilton's entire book is basing addiction on "moral judgement and disapproval about sexual impulses, urges or behaviours ... " An article about the ICD-11 explains compulsive sexual behavior disorder:

"Concerns about overpathologizing sexual behaviours are explicitly addressed in the diagnostic guidelines proposed for the disorder. Individuals with high levels of sexual interest and behaviour (e.g., due to a high sex drive) who do not exhibit impaired control over their sexual behaviour and significant distress or impairment in functioning should not be diagnosed with compulsive sexual behaviour disorder. The diagnosis should also not be assigned to describe high levels of sexual interest and behaviour (e.g., masturbation) that are common among adolescents, even when this is associated with distress.

The proposed diagnostic guidelines also emphasize that compulsive sexual behaviour disorder should not be diagnosed based on psychological distress related to moral judgments or disapproval about sexual impulses, urges or behaviours that would otherwise not be considered indicative of psychopathology. Sexual behaviours that are egodystonic can cause psychological distress; however, psychological distress due to sexual behaviour by itself does not warrant a diagnosis of compulsive sexual behaviour disorder.

Careful attention must be paid to the evaluation of individuals who self‐identify as having the disorder (e.g., calling themselves “sex addicts” or “porn addicts”). Upon examination, such individuals may not actually exhibit the clinical characteristics of the disorder, although they might still be treated for other mental health problems (e.g., anxiety, depression). Additionally, individuals often experience feelings such as shame and guilt in relationship to their sexual behaviour2, but these experiences are not reliably indicative of an underlying disorder." (Compulsive sexual behaviour disorder in the ICD‐11)

The diagnostics manuals have written the diagnosis in this way for two reasons. First, there is little to NO evidence that porn/sex is an addiction. Second, writers of the ICD particularly have identified a growing trend of self-diagnosis and clinicians misdiagnosing patients. Any medical practitioner understands the great risks in misdiagnosis individuals, but this concept seems completely lost on Hilton.

In chapter six "It is a Drug," Hilton argues that porn/sex are not only an addiction but are exactly like a drug. I'll address those specific studies he quotes and his failure to understand the research. Even when the authors of the research specifically say its not like a drug.

Currently, there is an active scientific discussion about whether compulsive sexual behaviour disorder can constitute the manifestation of a behavioural addiction. For ICD‐11, a relatively conservative position has been recommended, recognizing that we do not yet have definitive information on whether the processes involved in the development and maintenance of the disorder are equivalent to those observed in substance use disorders.. (Compulsive sexual behaviour disorder in the ICD‐11)

(Additional information about CSBD: Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder in ICD-11)

A Special Form of Insanity and Circular Reasoning

Hilton, without defining addiction or a meaningful criteria for pornography has effectively pathologized each reader. Dooming each reader to a terminal mental illness, he then moves directly into a section he calls "A Special Form of Insanity," in which he leads the reader to believe they are experiencing yet another mental disorder as a result of their "addiction" and "sinful" behavior. But when you don't think Hilton could be any more reckless in his misdiagnosis and labeling individuals insane, he categorically judges addiction as the "very definition of selfishness, the ultimate contracture of perspective."

In words that can only be spoken by someone who hasn't worked with addiction, Hilton boils this complicated and complex issue down to a "basic problem in addiction is rooted in perspective. Pride, stemming from a lack of gratitude, allows the person to entertain desires that selfishly disregard the consequences visited upon not only the addicted one, but also upon his loved ones." Furthermore he believes "willpower" is the means to sobriety.

A few years back, a bunch of friends of mine were praising an individual for his financial prowess. They were impressed with his insights into and strategies for "playing the market" and improving wealth. Because of my background in finance, my friends thought I would also be impressed with this individual’s perspectives. Although this individual knew I had a career in finance and a strong knowledge of the market, his confidence preceded him. Not five minutes into his dialog, it was clear he didn't actually know what he was talking about. He used the right lingo but out of order. There were nuances in his communication that would sound impressive to someone without a financial background but complete garbage to someone trained in the field. Sure enough, he was attempting to set up a ponzi scheme of sorts, which would have wrecked my friends’ financial futures.

Hilton confidence precedes him too; he uses all the correct lingo, but confuses basic terminology and is dangerously reductive, which can harm the reader. He plays a dangerous game of circular reasoning, leading the reader to believe that if they are denying, they are addicted; it’s because they are sinning and experiencing a form of insanity. The solution is willpower through the atonement and to give up being selfish. I cannot image the lives this chapter alone has wrecked.

Finally, and again, in a tone of irony that is carried throughout the book, the only "expert" he draws on in this "addiction" chapter is Patrick Carnes who famously self-promoted as, "the acknowledged expert in a field that until recently didn’t exist," who made his living and fame off diagnosing individuals with a non-existent illness. Hilton follows up in the next chapter "The Money Trail."

See also:

He Restoreth My Soul Introduction

See also:

He Restoreth My Soul Chapter One

He Restoreth My Soul Chapter One

A review and response to the book "He Restoreth My Soul: Understanding and Breaking the Chemical and Spiritual Chains of Pornography Addiction Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ" by Donald L. Hilton Jr., MD (Neurosurgeon).

This response addresses chapter one "Out of the Mouth of the Lion" pgs. 3–6.

Obstacle - Collective Identity

Chapter one is only three pages. In those three pages, Hilton leverages a "collective identity" or "collective behavior" to signal safe passage to his readers. This safe passage is critical to the LDS community. Within our culture, we are leary of "outside" sources in general, but especially those regarding sexuality or issues involving sexuality. The sanctimoniousness in which we address sexuality is both beautiful and hindering. Our view of sexuality is beautiful because of our connecting it to eternal progression. It’s hindering because we perceive external (those outside the faith) experts as a threat to that sacred sexuality.

Therefore, because Hilton is generally unknown among the faithful members of the church — he is neither a General Authority or an "official" resource for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint — he signals to the reader that he is a safe source by using language, analogies, scriptures and conclusions the collective identity already agrees with.

In social psychology there is a concept referred to as collective behavior:

"Collective behaviour, the kinds of activities engaged in by sizable but loosely organized groups of people. Episodes of collective behaviour tend to be quite spontaneous, resulting from an experience shared by the members of the group that engenders a sense of common interest and identity. The informality of the group’s structure is the main source of the frequent unpredictability of collective behaviour....

The U.S. sociologist Robert E. Park, who coined the term collective behaviour, defined it as “the behavior of individuals under the influence of an impulse that is common and collective, an impulse, in other words, that is the result of social interaction.” He emphasized that participants in crowds, fads, or other forms of collective behaviour share an attitude or behave alike, not because of an established rule or the force of authority, and not because as individuals they have the same attitudes, but because of a distinctive group process." Britannica

Hilton's appeal to the collective identity isn't inherently bad. Knowing your audience and connecting with the culture of your audience is good communication. However, when that appeal is used to perpetuate unfounded claims and assumptions, it’s contributing to a systemic problem. Whether he intended it or not, his leveraging a collective identity and backing it up with his credentials creates unchallenged buy-in within the community. 

Wresting

Hilton leverage the collective identity with a simple recipe:

  1. Identify a concept the particular community already agrees with: "Porn is evil."

  2. Quote a from a scripture or prophet/apostle that vaguely supports identified concept.

  3. Share a miraculous/captivating story/analogy that emphasizes concept.

  4. Provide vague non-solution that is often in the form of the "atonement".

1.

Hilton isn't sharing anything new to the intended community; however, he is feeding into the fear and panic of the "porn epidemic." He capitalizes on the readers’ fears by conveying the idea that no one is safe, and if we all are not vigilant, the dangers of porn will, like a lion "[grab] them by the spiritual throat and [strangle] the life out of happiness, joy, companionship, learning, love (both romantic and platonic), spirituality, reason, and life itself." He later references pop-psychology jargon, that if exposed to porn "even the sexual self being ruined and consumed as the chemically altered brain is left to crave what can never be fully satisfied." These statements are deeply problematic, untrue, divisive and communicate a confusing message of despair and hopelessness.

2.

Hilton's use of 1 Peter 5:8 is ironic. Hiltons's use of scripture here is referred to as proof-texting.

"Many Christian ministers and Christian teachers have used some version of the following humorous anecdote to demonstrate the dangers of prooftexting: "A man dissatisfied with his life decided to consult the Bible for guidance. Closing his eyes, he flipped the book open and pointed to a spot on the page. Opening his eyes, he read the verse under his finger. It read, 'Then Judas went away and hanged himself' (Matthew 27:5b). Finding these words unhelpful, the man randomly selected another verse. This one read, 'Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."' (Luke 10:37b). In desperation, he tried one more time. The text he found was: 'What you are about to do, do quickly.'" (John 13:27) Wikipedia

Also refer to "Proof-Texting is a Bad Habit that we Need to Break".

Throughout his book, Hilton assigns his own meaning to the particular passages he quotes. As for 1 Peter 5:8, he fails to emphasize the "sober" concept that Peter was conveying in "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour."

Isolating verse 8 from the context of Peter's message would lead any reader to believe we SHOULD be fearful of the "roaring lion." However, Peter’s message was quite the opposite. "Be sober" is a message of hope, love and grace. Peter is teaching about God's grace through the Atonement. We are safe, inspite of the "roaring lion," to be vigilant and observant how the fear of the lion will rob us of our joy. Let’s read this verse in context:

"6 Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time: 7 Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you. 8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: 9 Whom resist steadfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world. 10 But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you. 11 To him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen." 1 Peter 5: 6-11

How should believers live, believing in a real devil — a spiritual enemy with an agenda to bring harm to Christians? Peter's answer to that question begins this verse: Be sober-minded. Be alert. It's the third time in this letter Peter has urged his readers to be clear minded (1 Peter 1:13; 1 Peter 4:7). It matters that we are paying attention, with serious minds, to what's going on in our lives and in the world around us.

"Peter writes that there is danger beyond the physical persecution some of his readers were facing. There is a deep agenda, far beyond that of the powerful men who might inflict that persecution. The devil, not the men or women who might harm us, is the real enemy of a Christian believer.

Our enemy the devil desires to devour us, to cause real and lasting harm. The Greek word here is katapiein, literally meaning to "swallow," or to "drown." Peter has made it clear that our place in eternity with our Father is secure. The devil cannot take that from us, but he does seek to damage our faith. He wants fear to shake our submission to the Father, and lies to distort our understanding of God's goodness. Since He cannot touch the believer's soul, Satan seeks to leave us as weak and ineffective servants of our King.

In the next verse, Peter will describe how to fight that enemy. Notice, also, what he doesn't tell Christians to do. He doesn't say to live in fear. Nor does he say to live as if the reality of the devil is unimportant. We are not instructed to ignore the devil, nor to cower in the shadows." BibleRef

3.

Ironically, Hilton's focus is on the fear, the devil, the hopelessness, the loss, the damage. Unfortunately, he continues to misuse Peter's lion analogy, convincing the reader they are not safe, to hyperventilate before shadows. This does not create a clear and sober mind, let alone an informed mind. It creates panic and fear, and turns power over to the devil — exactly what Peter was warning us not to do.

Additionally, Hilton reinforces his faulty interpretation of the scripture by quoting non-experts on the subject. Although President Hinckley has perceived a potential danger that seems to be associated with pornography, both Hilton and Hinckley's comments oversimplify the complexity of the problems and fail to address the root issues involved in "damaging hearts and souls."

In Hilton's reference to a professional in chapter one, he not only quotes the therapist incorrectly, he again takes it out of context and misrepresents the intent of the therapist. In quoting Mark Haney, Hilton claims "pornography addiction" is what leads a teenager to experience "isolated agony."

First, "isolated agony" is nowhere in John Mark Haney's article "Teenagers and Pornography Addiction.”

Hilton, although vague in his misquoting Haney, the misquote leads the reader to believe pornography is what creates the isolation. This is false and NOT what Haney stated.

"Normalize the Issue: Many teenagers who are developing compulsive pornography problems do so in agonized isolation, often believing that they are perverts and alone in their actions. It can be helpful for the professional to educate them on the prevalence of the issue while still clearly communicating the dangers so they don’t trade their isolation for an ‘oh well, since everyone is doing it …’ idea, for that is common too."

Hilton's careless and self-serving misquoting and changing of context is reckless. Haney's only use of "isolation" is in a section educating the reader to "normalize the issue" with teens, recognizing that teens "often [believe] that they are perverts and alone." It is NOT because of the pornography, but because of the lack of education and clarity (sober thought) on the subject. This is a HUGE misrepresentation and is foreshadowing of Hilton's carelessness throughout the book.

Second, it seems like Hilton didn't even read the "Teenagers and Pornography Addiction" article.

"Some critical cultural, religious, and socioeconomic factors with pornography and youth warrant mention. Some cultures have much broader parameters surrounding what is considered appropriate with sexuality, while cultural norms within other groups make the topic almost unmentionable. Therefore, practitioners must attempt to educate themselves about cultural mores. ... Similarly, approaches to spirituality and religion can have a profound impact on a teenager’s sexual development, and not always in the way that a parent intends. For example, some youth who come from rigid and legalistic religious backgrounds that wrap sexuality in shame and guilt, try to forcefully repress their desires, which causes them to unconsciously bond with the same profane elements they are trying to ignore. When they act on these repressed desires, the resulting shame and self-loathing just perpetuates the cycle."

4.

After a confusing message of hopelessness and fear, Hilton's solution is the atonement, but he doesn't actually talk about the atonement. In just two paragraphs, he demonstrates his lack in doctrinal understanding and his mockery of those who have embraced the atonement without reprieve. He confuses agency, sin, transgression and biological limitations.

Somehow he is under the impression that women experiencing pornography is limited to chat rooms. This is complete ignorance, and potentially another misreading of the "Teenagers and Pornography Addiction" article.

Hilton suggests homosexuality is a similar issue as pornography and an addiction. Is Hilton suggesting reparative, conversion or aversion therapy?

Hilton's leveraging a collective identity is irresponsible and mitigates readers from identifying and questioning his inconsistencies and double checking his references.

See also: 

He Restoreth My Soul Introduction

He Restoreth My Soul: Introduction

A review and response to the book "He Restoreth My Soul: Understanding and Breaking the Chemical and Spiritual Chains of Pornography Addiction Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ" by Donald L. Hilton Jr., MD (Neurosurgeon).

This response addresses the Introduction to "He Restoreth My Soul", pgs. ix–xv.

General Thoughts and Impressions

While reading Hilton's book, the voice of Lemony Snicket would frequently enter my mind,

“Assumptions are dangerous things to make, and like all dangerous things to make — bombs, for instance, or strawberry shortcake — if you make even the tiniest mistake you can find yourself in terrible trouble. Making assumptions simply means believing things are a certain way with little or no evidence that shows you are correct, and you can see at once how this can lead to terrible trouble.”

As a clinician, father and husband with a profound desire to solve the "porn problem," I have spent my career and free time consuming every case study, research article, book, program and literature addressing porn and sex addiction both in the church and academia. Each study Hilton refers to in this book I have dissected and reread numerous times prior to reading his book. Not only am I well versed in the research, I routinely work with clients within the faith who struggle with out-of-control sexual behavior and pornography. Although this is a complicated emotional and spiritual issue and each individual is different, I am familiar what works and what doesn't work. Furthermore, I am aware of paradigms and treatment interventions that appear to work in the short term but have damaging long-term consequences.

Therefore, it is perplexing to me how Hilton, a medical doctor, has published a book full of assumptions and confirmations biases, especially considering such an important topic. I have no desire to question his integrity. In fact, I assume the best in that he has the desire to solve the "porn problem" too. However, his assumptions, conclusions and frequent use (and interpretation) of research are often off the mark, unsupported and sometimes hysteria that I can't help but wonder what he was thinking and how he thought this would be helpful. For someone not trained in medical science, regardless of the field of study, I could easily give a pass for authoring a book like "He restoreth My Soul." But Hilton is a medical doctor and uses his credentials on the book and throughout as a means to authoritatively back his statements.

Using his credentials adds weight to both his statements and a necessary backing to those statements. Using one's credentials, whether intending to act in that role or not, carries with it an important responsibility to accurately represent that profession and professional responsibility. Although each of are not excused from due diligence, the misuse of credentials can have lasting and harmful consequences. For example, when working with clients who dismiss sound therapeutic guidance and interventions, referencing the "science" from the neurosurgeon’s book "He Restoreth My Soul."

Furthermore, although I don't recall Hilton specifically stating that his book is a manual for leaders in the church, he has interwoven the LDS 12-step Addiction Recovery Program (ARP) throughout the book and frequently appeals to scriptural authority making it that "He Restoreth My Soul" has become a go-to book for bishops supporting their ward members. Again, this results in leadership dismissing sound therapeutic counsel for the "science" from a neurosurgeon’s book. Whether he intended it or not, Hilton has interfered with the health of a client.

If he simply published as a concerned member in the faith, providing his opinion, without any reference to his credentials, that might be one thing. But he's asserting authority and making scientifically false statements that ARE wrong and potentially damaging.

Due to the significant number of claims, statements and assumptions and popularity of this book, this review will address each chapter in its respective blog posts. The purpose of this review(s) has at least three goals: 1) provide hope, clarity and healing to those struggling with porn and out-of-control or undesired sexual behavior, 2) correct misinformation that prevents healing, 3) provide readers of "He Restoreth My Soul" a meaningful response to Hiltons assumptions.

Introduction

Within his introduction, Hilton states his purpose for writing "He Restoreth My Soul" as a "response to what I regard as the primary threat to our peace as individuals, families, Church members, and as a society, culture, nation, and world." (pg. ix)

It's important for me to point out and give Hilton credit for stating this as his opinion, "what I regard" and emphasizing in the following sentence that these thoughts are his alone and not of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, even with that "disclaimer," he establishes the premise of his book, which draws heavily on literature, research and scripture. His opinion is given as an absolute, not a thesis or hypothesis.

Ironically, Hilton emphasizes later in his introduction, "knowledge is power," though he seems to neglect essential facts. The very premise of his book is based entirely on opinion and not fact or knowledge. His opinion that pornography is the "primary threat to our peace as individuals, families, Church members, and as a society, culture, nation, and world." His belief that it's the primary threat is not only unsupported but oversimplifies the problem and prevents meaningful solutions.

His "regard as the primary threat" functions as the filter and lens through which he interprets every study, literature and personal experience. In science, this is referred to as confirmation bias.

"Confirmation bias, the tendency to process information by looking for, or interpreting, information that is consistent with one’s existing beliefs. This biased approach to decision making is largely unintentional and often results in ignoring inconsistent information. Existing beliefs can include one’s expectations in a given situation and predictions about a particular outcome. People are especially likely to process information to support their own beliefs when the issue is highly important or self-relevant." Britannica

Hilton acknowledges his confirmation bias by stating, "I began writing some thoughts after searching the current medical literature on the chemical aspects of sexual addictions and then focused on pornography addiction." He then further acknowledges his very limited and isolated experience with "addiction" was during a mandatory psychiatry rotation in a substance abuse clinic while a medical student.

Hilton is clearly stating here that 1) his confirmation bias led him to only read "chemical aspects of sexual addictions," and 2) those findings led him to adapt those findings or focus on porn addiction. Further, his limited experience wasn't as a trained therapist in psychiatry, but as a medical student in a substance abuse clinic addressing severe substance abuse. Despite his limited and filtered knowledge and experience with addiction, he concludes that "rat models of Parkinson's disease, which is a defect in one component of the dopaminergic system of the brain, just as addiction is an imbalance in another dopaminergic system."

He jumps to conclusions and absolutes are not only evidence of Hilton’s confirmation bias but are also misleading, incomplete, and wrong. Also notice how he draws on his limited experience studying rats with Parkinson's disease to alert the reader, "which is ONE component of the dopaminergic system."  He compares and oversimplifies Parkinson to ONE component. Then he states absolutely, "just as addiction is an imbalance is an imbalance" of a DIFFERENT dopaminergic system. He not only concludes that dopamine deficiency is cause of addiction, but uses something scary like Parkinson's to heighten the reader's attention. (I'll address the fallacies of the dopamine claims in my review of chapter 2 "What is Addiction?")

The introduction is riddled with misinformation, scientifically and therapeutically erroneous statements. He also perpetuates unhealthy dynamics in relationships by warning for women in the church to be aware of these dangers so they can "be discerning in dating and eventually choosing a marriage partner." I can't tell you how many men have said women have left a dating relationship because the men have said they have looked at porn. Good men have resulted to hiding, lying or justifying their behavior because they are afraid the girl they are dating or their wife will leave them and view them as an addict.

Hilton in the "What Can We Do?" portion of the introduction reinforces these assumptions and absolutes, unhealthy and potentially dangerous suggestions. I will address each of these at length in the following reviews. But a few of the most troubling and uninformed suggestions I will mention here:

"Treat pornography and sexual addiction as a full addiction, and not from a behavioral/spiritual perspective alone." 

This suggestion is an example of Hilton’s profound lack (or isolated) experience and knowledge on the topic of addiction and sexual behavior. As I will point out in forthcoming reviews, his definition of addiction is nonsensical first of all. But treating pornography as a "full addiction" could be compared to requiring brain surgery every time someone has a headache.

"Disclosure of each incident of viewing or sexually acting out is essential to obtain both repentance and recovery." 

If one can't share with their spouse what they have viewed or sexual acting out, I assure you, the problem isn't pornography. As for confessing to a bishop of "each incident," this is not only ridiculous, but there is no support for this in church policy or doctrine. It also perpetuates the problem. Clients have routinely reported, "Oh well, I backslid. Since I have to tell the bishop I might as well make the most of this." This comment also sets the bishop up as something he is NOT. He is not a therapist; he is not an intervention specialist. Disclosing each incident is also not repentance; it's not measuring success or failure. Furthermore, how is an "incident" defined? By the bishop, by the individual, by the individual's spouse?

"Recognizing that many married men are secretly addicted, and have support groups ready to help them emerge from addiction." 

Yes. Hilton is absolutely correct. At least with the "secretly." But not because of the lack of resources or support groups. Rather, because they are sick and tired of being told they are addicts. "Of course, that's what an addict would say." Right? Wrong. Most individuals who have a "porn addiction" are aware of it. They don't deny it. But they hide it because of how their support community reacts to them.

As I mentioned, there are many errors in the introduction. I never discourage someone from reading, but I would strongly caution the reader of "He Restoreth My Soul" to be wise and question these bold assumptions. I encourage the reader to question my review also, just as I encourage you to challenge Hilton. Challenge me. Look of the research in its full context and expand your experience and resources.

Chapter 1: "Out of the Mouth of the Lion"

“Don’t Touch” — Addressing Sexual Taboos In The LDS Faith Part 5

Previous Chapter: 4. What Went Wrong?

A New Culture Is Born: “Doctrine And Addiction” And Returning To The 1700s

In my book, I explore in detail the historical development of how we’ve come to culturally believe masturbation is such a serious sin. Even in this brief summary you can see how the leadership appears to have overcorrected from the ‘40s and ’50s. Building on strong cautionary language given by President Clark, Elder McConkie and President Kimball (just to name a few) reinforced those cautions by ironically breaking from the medical field again. But this time, in a regressive way. They were teaching that participating in masturbation was a sin that led to emotional, spiritual and further sexual sins in addition to warning against “would-be authorities” who taught otherwise:

“Youth come into contact early with masturbation. Many would-be authorities declare that it is natural and acceptable, and frequently young men I interview cite these advocates to justify their practice of it. To this we must respond that the world's norms in many areas — drinking, smoking, and sex experience generally, to mention only a few — depart increasingly from God's law. The Church has a different, higher norm.

“Thus prophets anciently and today condemn masturbation. It induces feelings of guilt and shame. It is detrimental to spirituality. It indicates slavery to the flesh, not that mastery of it and the growth toward godhood which is the object of our mortal life. Our modern prophet has indicated that no young man should be called on a mission who is not free from this practice.

“While we should not regard this weakness as the heinous sin which some other sexual practices are, it is of itself bad enough to require sincere repentance. What is more, it too often leads to grievous sin, even to that sin against nature, homosexuality. For, done in private, it evolves often into mutual masturbation — practiced with another person of the same sex and thence into total homosexuality.”[1]

Allen Bergin, a retired psychologist from Brigham Young University and past president of the Association of Mormon Counselors and Psychotherapists (AMCAP), recognized the moral dilemma President Kimball’s “Miracle of Forgiveness” posed and felt the useful parts were "overshadowed by a host of negatives and also outdated policies that the church itself doesn't even endorse anymore." In his respect and admiration for the “Yoda-like Mormon prophet” he recognized the good it offered and said, "It is unfortunate that his reputation for goodwill is obscured by some extreme adjectives he used 45 years ago." President Kimball's grandson Jordan Kimball also said, "I would want him to be remembered ... for his love, compassion and encouragement." Recognizing that the book addressed the needs “of the 1940s, '50s and '60s, and, in its time, it didn't seem out of place," Jordan Kimball says, "but it was used beyond its due date. Even the church has moved on." Jordan Kimball wished the now-anachronistic book could have been "allowed to sunset."[2]

Years after publication, Kimball reportedly remarked that its tone may have been too strong. “Sometimes I think I might have been a little too strong about some of the things I wrote in that book.”[3] Elder Richard G. Scott's wise advice was to “read the last two chapters first to appreciate the full miracle of forgiveness before reading anything else.”[4] That comment probably came 30-some years too late.

Nonetheless, President Kimball’s bold clarity, echoing McConkie's “Mormon Doctrine” established itself as an unquestionable measurement of righteousness. If the “doctrine” that masturbatatory insanity wasn’t re-established by this time, it would become a concrete and irrefutable commandment in The Church culture over the next two decades. He gave members and professionals no other option than to agree, as mentioned earlier: “Many would-be authorities declare that it [masturbation] is natural and acceptable, and frequently young men I interview cite these advocates to justify the practice of it. To this we must respond that the world’s norms in many areas ... depart increasingly from God’s law. The Church has a different, higher norm.”[5]

Stop Calling It An Addiction

“In thirty-one years as a sex therapist, marriage counselor, and psychotherapist, I’ve never seen sex addiction. I’ve heard about virtually every sexual variation, obsession, fantasy, trauma, and involvement with sex workers, but I’ve never seen sex addiction.” —Marty Klein

To further complicate the issue, the “sex addiction” model was popularized during the ‘70s when a couple of individuals involved with Alcoholics Anonymous decided to organize a special group for those who routinely cheated on their spouses. There was absolutely no scientific evidence or support that sex addiction existed. Although we are discussing masturbation specifically, I am going to address it in the following comments under the idea of “sex addiction,” as that is often the reason given to avoid masturbation.

“After 40 years of the sex addiction model existing, there is not a single published randomized-controlled empirically-reviewed study that reveals that sex addiction treatment works.” —Dr. David Ley

Why is that? If this sex addiction existed and was so dangerous, why hasn’t there been a single study on its effectiveness? Try to find statistics on addiction recovery programs (ARP), other than the ARP missionaries bearing their testimonies that it saves lives. If ARP mirrors AA at all, then peer-reviewed studies peg the success rate of AA somewhere between five and 10 percent.

David J. Ley, Ph.D., doesn’t mix his words when he expresses his concern with this fake diagnosis:

"Criticisms of the concept of sexual addiction are not just intellectual egocentrism. There are real dangers inherent in the sex addiction concept. I believe that for the field of health care, medicine, and mental health to endorse and reify a flawed concept creates a very dangerous slippery slope of moral relativism, where any socially unacceptable behavior is labeled a mental disorder subject to psychiatric treatment.

“The concept of sexual addiction is intimately connected to the conflicted sexual morality embedded in our culture at its deepest levels, where sexuality is seen as a dangerous evil temptation that must be constantly constrained and feared. It also reflects the influence of the media and the changing strategies of the 24-7 news and entertainment industry. The concept of sexual addiction is driven by the news and entertainment industry as well as the professional treatment providers, facilities, and industry that serve the needs of self-identified sex addicts.

“Lastly, the label of sex addiction affects our efforts to enforce expectations of responsibility, holding ourselves, and especially men, responsible for their choices and actions. If we accept the notion that sexual addiction is a disorder, what is the impact upon our understanding of sexual arousal itself, and upon our view of masculinity and personal responsibility for one’s sexual behaviors? A challenge to those of us who criticize the concept of sex addiction is that we are ignoring the very real suffering of clients who are desperate for help.

“People around the country are dealing with the effects of their sexual desires and behaviors, as they affect their lives and the lives of those around them. Men and women are struggling with answers to why they or their intimate partners are making unhealthy, destructive sexual decisions, decisions that destroy families, careers, and marriages. I don’t disagree with the idea that there are people who are desperate for help. I just frankly don’t think that giving them a label of sex addiction is ultimately going to be helpful to them, to society, or to the field of mental health. I’m troubled by the defensiveness and attacking response to criticism." —David Ley, Myth of Sexual Addiction

But what about all the research that “proves” sex addiction is real? There is none. For example, one popular study Fight the New Drug (FTND) and others love to reference to prove sex addiction is just as harmful as drugs, is the Voon study titled, “Neural Correlates of Sexual Cue Reactivity in Individuals with and without Compulsive Sexual Behaviours.” You’ll notice FTND “quote mining” these studies like a Jeremy Runnells googling Church History, concluding “pornography harms the brain almost exactly the same as drug addiction.

But not too fast — even the authors of the research say that’s a bad idea.

“Voon is quick to caution against using her studies to leap to conclusions about the addictiveness of sex or porn. ‘Much more research is required,’ she explains. Meanwhile, a study from Nicole Prause at the University of California, Los Angeles, used electroencephalography (EEG) to measure the brainwaves of people presented with sexual images and found something different. She observed that volunteers who believed they had a problem with porn reacted to the pictures with low levels of excitement in the brain, unlike other addicts faced with triggering cues. ‘These people may be having problems, but of some other type,’ says Prause. ‘Addiction is not a good way of understanding it.’” —Emily Borrow, “Can You Really Be Addicted to Sex?”, The Economist

In a movement I call “Compassionate Kelloggs,” FTND and other organizations like them, such as Sons of Helaman, may not use penis-sized iron maidens or suggest sewing your foreskin, but their emotional message is still damaging. They set themselves up as saving the public from the dangers of these behaviors but are using fear to accomplish their objectives.

President Dieter F. Uchtdorf summed up this concept brilliantly and precisely when he said,

“People who are fearful may say and do the right things, but they do not feel the right things. ... They often feel helpless and resentful, even angry. Over time these feelings lead to mistrust, defiance, even rebellion.” — President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, Perfect Love Casteth Out Fear, April 2017 Conference

There are few things I’ve seen more clearly than this: when fear is used as a motivator, we cause people to feel and experience the wrong things. As a result, resentment, pain and rebellion often occur. This is by far the number one problem I see when individuals — regardless of age — visit with me regarding sexually-related issues. One of the discoveries is that those who used fear to avoid sexual stimulation, pursuits and desires now struggle as married individuals to function in healthy sexual relationships.

These compassionate Kelloggs are modeling the 1700s sexual messages: “If you engage in this behavior you will become addicted, you are ill. And we love you.” In the case of the Sons of Helaman, the creator Maurice W. Harker identifies in his trademark “The Chemical Spill,™” wherein he defines God’s gift of sexual desire as “Deviant Sex Chemicals.” The intellectual dishonesty of organizations like these is blatant, but few question their legitimacy. Why not? Because it’s “something.” It makes people feel good when they are doing “something,” rather than nothing.

This lazy, fear-based message is so far reaching and pervasive that we’ve become experts at shaming with love. I hear it all the time from leaders. It usually goes something like this: “We are removing the shame around masturbation and reminding them it’s a sin.” Guess what? They never forgot it was a sin. Additionally, I would argue a youth learning and developing into their pubescent years is no more experiencing a sin masturbating then a diabetic learning how to control and regulate their blood sugar.

Even FairMormon posted some standard, run of the mill, lazy, fear-based masturbation material done in the tone of love. The material is intellectually dishonest and forced to fit a moral view that can’t be scientifically or doctrinally supported. This podcast is far below the standard of FairMormon.

“Any claims you have heard that you will be physically harmed unless you do masturbate are simply false, or greatly overblown. There is a study that shows that older men have a lower risk of prostate cancer if they ejaculate more frequently. However, this same finding was not replicated in the case of young men. In fact, higher rates of masturbation raise the risk of prostate cancer in young men. Interestingly, more frequent intercourse did NOT raise the risk, but masturbation did.”[6]

Yes, Steve Densley Jr., made a refute of “simply false” and used a “study” that contradicted its own findings to support his argument. Of course, it was a cancer study too, but I don’t blame him; there is NO research to support his claims. Yet, he doesn’t stop there. He goes on to quote from Spencer W. Kimball’s “Love Versus Lust” talk (Brigham Young University Speeches of the Year [Provo, 5 Jan. 1965], p. 22) and concludes, “if we are not willing to obey him in the ‘little’ things, when faced with a greater trial, we will not have developed either the strength or resolve to obey in the big things.” Densley Jr.’s usage of these sources and “studies” is an example of how pseudoscience of sexuality has, like in Tissot’s day, become a go-to phrase. He is an impressive and intelligent individual whom I admire, and I value what he has done with FairMormon. In this topic, however, he doesn’t appear to know what he is talking about.

Furthermore, Densley Jr. dismisses the valid question, “Can masturbation be done without lusting?” by stating the go-to “sacredness” and “powerful chemical reactions” argument, using these as if to say that personal arousal couldn’t be sacred and using the entirely untrue cop out of the powerful chemical argument.

Overall, it is clear from the data that the functional neuroanatomy of sex is very similar to that of other pleasures and that it is unlikely that there is anything special about the brain mechanisms and networks underlying sex.” —J.R. Geargiadis & M.L. Bringelbach, in “The human sexual response cycle: Brain imaging evidence linking sex to other pleasures”

Logically, these types of arguments are trite, lazy, and frankly downright confusing to kids. Are we really telling them that their wedding night is a gateway drug to addiction, cancer, and uncontrollable sex? If sex was so addictive, the majority of my couples work would be strategizing planned abstinence and recovery. Nope, the majority of my couples work is interventions in creating desire. That pesky addictive sex drive sure is never around when it counts. Culturally, we have taught — and especially women — how to reject sexual desire so well that the dysfunctions present in their marriage. But of course, they’ll “figure that out” with a spouse who also doesn’t know their own body.[1] [2] [3] [4]

This is the problem. It’s not working. The addiction model is failing and the aversion approach is creating a far bigger problem. It’s creating a bigger problem because the real issues are not being addressed. Why is diagnosing someone as a sex addict problematic?

"Anecdotal reports within sex addiction, and some research, suggests that personality disorder is extremely prevalent in sex addiction. Some estimates suggest that personality disorders and mood disorders are present in almost all cases of sex addiction. Multiple studies show that alleged sex addicts almost always have some other major mental illness. So, when such individuals present for sex addiction treatment, their hypersexual behaviors are most likely to be a symptom of the existing disorders. As one sex therapist and clinician described to me, 'The sex addiction diagnosis is a lazy diagnosis.' It ignores more relevant emotional and psychiatric issues to focus exclusively upon a person's sexual behavior.

“Because periods of sexual promiscuity are a frequent symptom for clients with bipolar disorder when they are in a manic phase, we would not normally diagnose hypersexuality and bipolar disorder, since bipolar disorder would subsume the symptom of periods of hypersexual behavior. According to the theories of sex addiction, the use of sex to manage negative emotions is identified as a core symptom of unhealthy sexuality and sex addiction. But if those negative emotions reflect the influence of depression or post-traumatic stress-disorder, it is more important to diagnose and treat the negative emotions. A diagnosis of sex addiction is superfluous at best and a dangerous distraction from the real treatment needed at worst." —David Ley, "The Myth of Sex Addiction"

The next time a research claims it’s a study of sexual addiction, review whether or not it has factored in preexisting mental health issues. Many studies like this one have found 80% or more actually are suffering from other behaviors; the sexual issues are usually a symptom of coping with the preexisting condition.

Furthermore, what about that very dangerous and highly addictive reward chemical dopamine? Dopamine does not equal reward, or at least, it's not that simple; refer to the study “The Mysterious Motivational Functions of Mesolimbic Dopamine.”[7]

Dopamine has become the scapegoat neurological chemical. It's just not that simple. Yes, dopamine is involved in sexual experience. But no more than a mother breastfeeding, or the pleasure of seeing your kids after a long work trip. Additionally, the brain and biological response to sexual experience cannot be simplified down to one or two chemicals. You can explore this topic further here: The unsexy truth about dopamine. And here: No, Dopamine is Not Addictive.

Next Chapter: 6. Purity, Modesty, and Moral Ambiguity


Table of Contents:

0. Introduction

1. Background — It Happened Again

2. Context is Important: A Brief History Of Masturbation Beliefs Within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

3. Cultivating Versus Condemning

4. What Went Wrong?

5. A New Culture Is Born: “Doctrine And Addiction” And Returning To The 1700s

6. Purity, Modesty, And Moral Ambiguity

7. Solution: Real Self-Mastery Cultivating Sexuality

Additional Resources
Facebook Group "Improving Intimacy in Mormon Marriages"
Blog, "Mormon Marriages"


[1] Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, pp. 77-78

[2] Peggy Fletcher Stack (July 24, 2015). "LDS classic 'Miracle of Forgiveness' fading away, and some Mormons say it's time". Salt Lake Tribune. http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=2762815&itype=CMSID

[3] Edward L. Kimball, Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball, SLC: Deseret Book, 2005, 80

[4] Richard G. Scott Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles “The Path to Peace and Joy” https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/the-path-to-peace-and-joy?lang=eng

[5] Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, pp. 77

[6] “Fair Questions 4: What’s Wrong with Masturbation?” Steve Densley Jr. https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2013/01/02/fair-questions-4-whats-wrong-with-masturbation

[7] The Mysterious Motivational Functions of Mesolimbic Dopamine http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.10.021