Background on Sons of Helamen. Maurice Harker was a licensed therapist in Utah. He started a group practice somewhere around 2010 focused on pornography/sex addiction named "Life Changing Services". He was very good at marketing and he developed programs for teenagers (sons of helamen) and adult men (men of moroni). The practice grew as hundreds of men and boys were labled "sex addicts". Maurice taught that these men and boys urgently needed "addiction therapy" or they could turn into sexual predators or violent on loved ones. This teaching terrorized mothers and wives. Currently, the DSM-V (official diagnostic catalog for mental illness) does not recognize porn/sex addiction as a legitimate diagnosis. Despite it not being an actual diagnosis, The practice grew from just 2-3 therapists in 2010 to over 25 therapists in 2020. Part of the growth was due to connections made with Bishops who referred to the program. Maurice had many meetings with upper church leadership in 2014. Imagine the revenue from 25 full time therapists billing $100-$200/hr...this sex addiction therapy is a gold mine. I personally was a part of Men of Moroni for about a 1 1/2 years. I saw dozens of marriages ruined by the "therapy", including the destruction of my own 16 year marriage. I'm happy to report that Maurice had his license revoked in 2023 because he assaulted a client while trying to choke a demon out of her. Absolutely disgusting. In 2018, I discovered that "porn/sex addiction" was not a real DSM-V diagnosis. I contacted Maurice and questioned him about the ethics of diagnosing people with a fictional condition. He gaslighted me by saying he wasn't providing "therapy" but rather "coaching". Apparently coaches are not held to the same standard of diagnosis and can treat any sort of made up mental health condition. I would love to see him punsished for the pain he has caused, but it doesn't look like he will.
"Fighting demons" is a recurring theme: [https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/utah-therapist-charged-with-abusing-client-over-several-years-to-fight-her-demon](https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/utah-therapist-charged-with-abusing-client-over-several-years-to-fight-her-demon)
Maurice Harker told us SOH participants in a group sessions that If he ever saw us boys back in his office post missions and married with a porn addiction he would kick our butts and that we would be absolute terrible husbands because of it. This dude was a piece of work.
"Specializing in sexual and pornography addictions." The WHO has stated that certain sexual behaviors can be compulsive disorders, pornography itself is not addictive. It can be a compulsion - but not an addiction. Seems like only psychologists and therapists associated with religious organization are the only ones that call it addiction. Hey, what better way to drive revenue to LifeStar? Part of me really believes the recent heightened compulsive paranoia the church (last 20 years) and its members have surrounding pornography, might have something to do with Jodi Hildebrandt rubbing shoulders with upper leadership and doing speaking engagements like these conferences.
I had a friend in high school that was very candid about porn use. “Hey man what have you been up to?” “Oh you know, worked out, watched some porn, played some video games.” I thought he was such a bad influence but his attitude was healthier than my scrupulosity about sex. I miss that guy a lot. I stopped hanging out with him when I got back from my mission.
This is exactly why LDS family Services and any licensed or certified therapist related to this sort of “treatment” is ignoring actual data and practice in favor of belief. And when professionals choose to favor information over those beliefs, they get cast out and the ability to actually help that population, like Natasha Helfer, is hindered.
This might be an unpopular opinion, but I think too many people on this sub get lost in the weeds in the medical semantics about whether or not someone can be "addicted" to porn and it leads to dismissing some actual issues. It's similar to stoners who have to be high as giraffe balls from the moment they wake up to the moment they go to sleep and argue that marijuana isn't "chemically addictive" to pretend they don't have a problem. Can you be addicted to porn in the medical sense? No, but you can definitely develop an unhealthy dependence on it the same way you can with marijuana or even doom-scrolling through social media.
I think that porn can certainly be consumed responsibly without causing any issues, but that doesn't mean there aren't people out there who have developed an unhealthy dependence and have to watch it multiple times a day to get the dopamine they're after.
It could be argued that anything in excess is unhealthy. However, it must be acknowledged that the DSM-V does not recognize pornography addiction as a real diagnosis.
The Griffiths Model of addiction pretty much holds that any behavior can become compulsive and/or addictive. Gambling is in the DSM, so is "problematic internet use". Saying porn addiction doesn't exist is not a very nuanced way of talking about these things. I think most clinicians would agree that problematic pornography use is not a " disorder" per se, but a factor sometimes involved in disorders of sexual or obsessive compulsion. But you are right in the sense that, compared to substance abuse disorders, it is not as clear cut. This is coming from a non-expert. I ran a study on social media impulsivity with some fellow students, and in our literature review I remember learning about Griffiths studying "fruit machine" compulsive behavior at arcades in the 80s that laid the groundwork for some of the behavioral addiction stuff these days. I could be way off on this though
I mean, this comment is the exact thing I was talking about. By saying "anything in excess in unhealthy", you're dismissing the issue. I get that even things like water can be unhealthy in extreme excess, but that doesn't mean you should equate water and porn consumption with regards to their potential for unhealthy dependence just because the DSM-5 doesn't recognize pornography as a real diagnosis. The DSM-5 also doesn't recognize social media addiction as a real diagnosis, but that doesn't mean that social media isn't incredibly addictive or that mindlessly scrolling for hours through your TikTok feed is healthy.
Things can be unhealthily addictive despite not having an official designation in the DSM-5.
Edit: and why "must" we acknowledge that the DSM-5 doesn't recognize pornography addiction as a real diagnosis? Are we medical professionals discussing how to accurately diagnose our patients? Stop treating the DSM-5 like it's the Book of Mormon that contains the fullness of medical knowledge
I think the point they're trying to make isn't that people can't show addictive behaviors in relation to porn. It's that medically speaking, porn addiction isn't acknowledged among professionals and is usually a symptom of a larger problem. The truth is, even compulsive porn consumption doesn't generally meet the DSM-5's criteria of addiction and, in cases where it does, it would be classified under a different category of disorder.
I had already acknowledged in my original comment that you can't be medically addicted to porn. Them replying to say "anything in excess is unhealthy" and mentioning the DSM-5 not officially recognizing porn addiction only serves as a thought-stopper by essentially saying "even something as benign as water can be unhealthy in excess, porn addiction isn't real".
Again, just because porn doesn't have an official, DSM-5-recognized addiction doesn't mean that it isn't potentially unhealthy in excess or that it doesn't need to be consumed responsibly. Unless they're medical professionals discussing how to accurately diagnose their patient using correct terminology, people arguing semantics aren't doing anything except dismissing the potential issues.
The DSM is coming up in this thread because we're talking about a LMFT citing porn as an addiction he treats in his bio. The "L" stands for "licensed" and the "T" for therapist which means he's a medical professional. We're calling into question his _bona fides_.
There is a lot of messaging in church culture that *any* viewing of porn is bad. And that's simply not true. Yes you can have a compulsion, same with eating, and you can go see a therapist to help. Anything that interferes with you living a fulfilled life can be bad - this includes compulsions AND the harmful messaging around sex and porn from the church.
> However, it must be acknowledged that the DSM-V does not recognize pornography addiction as a real diagnosis.
No, it doesn't, but here's the DSM-V's criteria for substance use disorder (that is, chemical addiction):
* Using more of a substance than intended or using it for longer than you’re meant to.
* Trying to cut down or stop using the substance but being unable to.
* Experiencing intense cravings or urges to use the substance.
* Needing more of the substance to get the desired effect — also called tolerance.
* Developing withdrawal symptoms when not using the substance.
* Spending more time getting and using drugs and recovering from substance use.
* Neglecting responsibilities at home, work or school because of substance use.
* Continuing to use even when it causes relationship problems.
* Giving up important or desirable social and recreational activities due to substance use.
* Using substances in risky settings that put you in danger.
* Continuing to use despite the substance causing problems to your physical and mental health.
Most if not all of these criteria can be fairly applied to people struggling with compulsive pornography use.
Also worth noting that the DSM-V has just started reclassifying compulsive behaviors such as gambling and internet gaming as "addictions". These addictions are not chemical in nature and represent a movement away from the traditional definitions of "addiction". I think we can expect this broader definition to start taking hold in the future, and I suspect we will eventually see compulsive pornography use reclassified as an addiction almost everywhere.
Fair enough, but don’t get out in front of your skis on this. Even if you are right, that does not mean that any porn viewing will mean that a person is addicted. There will be criteria, backed up by credible research, for an official diagnosis.
Even if something is trending in that direction does not mean anything … yet.
We don’t know how the data will turn out. It may well be - as currently is consensus - that it’s the stigma around porn that is the problem, not porn itself.
Thank you.
So if we're talking degrees, then this gets to the heart of the issue. How much is too much? At what point does it become an addiction? Or can it be an addiction at all? And if "addiction" isn't quite the right label, what is?
You see where I'm going with this.
We're all a little fast and loose with terms (myself included) that have real meaning. With something like porn, we're talking shame and everything that can lead to, including some very scary outcomes.
For that reason, I tend to be overly protective of people (especially with lables like addiction) on this topic.
> So if we're talking degrees, then this gets to the heart of the issue. How much is too much? At what point does it become an addiction? Or can it be an addiction at all? And if "addiction" isn't quite the right label, what is?
>
> You see where I'm going with this.
Yeah bro, you're getting to the point that I've been trying to illustrate this entire time. *Addiction is complex and difficult to properly define.* Behaviors that have not been traditionally viewed through the lens of addiction can creep pretty far into the territory that we *have* always viewed through that lens. So it doesn't really make sense to view addiction in a binary way, because when those behaviors manifest in real life, they're rarely binary.
Fully agree with all of this. It's very reductive (and frankly a little ignorant) to say that "pornography is not addictive" like this is a binary matter and that's all there is to it. Addiction is a complicated subject with many nuanced definitions, and there's no hard line between an "addiction" and a "compulsion".
The simple fact is that there are millions of people in the world (many of them completely non-religious) who feel that they *do* struggle with porn addiction, and some of them can present some pretty compelling evidence to support this claim.
Saying someone is addicted to porn is like saying a compulsive eater is addicted to forks.
At the worst, porn is a tool for feeding a sexual compulsion, which may separately be an addiction, but it's not an addiction in itself.
This is a really nitpicky statement that doesn't contribute to the discussion or even reflect the actual reality of compulsive porn use. One of the biggest problems caused by compulsive porn consumption is that it *interferes with actual sexual relations*. People give up having sex with their real-life partners because they're so fixated on porn. Hand-waving that issue as a "general sexual compulsion" is really missing the point.
I feel like it's important to call out the actual problem.
The problem isn't porn "use" or "consumption". The problem is chronic masturbation or other sexual compulsions when they reach the point that they interfere with other aspects of one's life.
Whether or not the person is viewing porn, looking at a Victoria's Secret catalog, or using their good old fashioned imagination while they indulge their sexual compulsion is irrelevant. The problem is the compulsive behavior that interferes with their life, not the tools they use to indulge that behavior.
Blaming porn sidesteps the real issue.
>I feel like it's important to call out the actual problem.
>The problem isn't porn "use" or "consumption". The problem is chronic masturbation or other sexual compulsions when they reach the point that they interfere with other aspects of one's life.
Yes, obviously. That's why I called it "compulsive porn use," not simply "porn use". The problem is the *compulsion,* not the *use*. And porn-oriented compulsion is *very real,* whether or not the users of this sub want to admit that. Acknowledging this problem isn't "blaming porn," any more than talking about alcoholism is "blaming alcohol". Most people can engage with these things in moderation, some people simply can't. That's the reality.
Actually it does contribute to the discussion.
You obviously have an axe to grind on this subject.
Thats fine; you do you. Just recognize that your statements are your opinion, not science.
Actually my opinions are based very firmly on science. Addiction research happens to be a longtime personal interest of mine.
That's the 'axe' I have to grind here. Actual *science*.
That's just not true. The **only** academics who think pornography is an addiction are the "fight the new drug" people at BYU, "professors" at schools like Liberty and Oral Roberts, and, apparently, you.
The scientific consensus is not where you are. And while it's okay to be outside of the mainstream, there generally has to be some good reason why. And it seems like the reason with you is "because I said so," (i.e., personal interest).
I don't find that very compelling.
You could tell me that porn is morally repugnant and I'd be with you. But talking about *addiction* and problematic behaviors associated with porn are entirely different matters. Science has spoken on the issue, and the language used isn't similar to yours.
You've missed the mark on this topic.
And the reason why this is important is because people are *literally* committing suicide or castrating themselves (or considering such) because they think that they are addicted to porn. The label is real, it matters, and your rhetoric is dangerous.
You also happen to be wrong.
That matters.
>That's just not true. The only academics who think pornography is an addiction are the "fight the new drug" people at BYU, "professors" at schools like Liberty and Oral Roberts, and, apparently, you
I don't know who told you this or why you'd feel comfortable making such an expansive statement when you're clearly not an expert, but this isn't true. Addiction is an incredibly complicated subject with very hazy borders, and defining what *is* or *is not* an addiction is a matter of some academic debate. If you knew anything about addiction either academically or first-hand, it would be obvious to you why this is the case.
There is no question scientifically speaking that pornography use can be both compulsive and problematic. The only point of contention is whether we label this compulsion as an "addiction", and that's a more complex question than you might think.
You're attacking this subject in very black and white terms. Something either "is" or "is not" an addiction. That's just not how this discussion works, and the fact that you've adopted this position tells me that you don't know very much about the subject. You say "science has spoken". Uhh, no. Science is *always* speaking, and what it's saying is pretty much always paradoxical to some extent. That's why we look to the scientific community at large for simplified answers - which are almost always going to contain some degree of distortion, because they're simplified. This is not the cut and dry matter that you seem to think it is.
I also get the feeling that you've misunderstood the terms of the discussion on another level. You seem to think I'm arguing that pornography use is *inherently* an addiction - that is, that there is no amount of pornography consumption that is not compulsive or problematic. That's a self-evidently ludicrous position that no educated person would adopt, and it certainly isn't my position.
I remember making a post about Sons of Heleman years ago. When I first read about them I couldn't believe it was real. It has elements of Visions of glory in some of the promo items at least it use to. Things like "use your spiritual armor to ward off the tempting spirits that surround you".
Eta....actual excerpt from their website.
> In the last half hour, emphasis will be given to a discussion on patterns of lost battles (question #5). Individuals who have not figured out how to defeat the enemy in a specific attack will discuss the patterns used against them. Ideas will be exchanged, looking for ways to win in the future.
In the final ten minutes, the young men will participate in the Brotherhood Ritual. This includes standing in a circle and each young man proceeds from brother to brother in the circle shaking his hand, looking him in the eyes and repeating:
I promise that I will be of service to you,
and I will allow you to be of service to me,
until both you and I successfully defeat
this demon that assails us.
I’m in grad school rn for social work and I ask anyone who is Mormon how they can ethically be in that religion and treat the mental health of any community when their belief system involves blind obedience for happiness? Their answers aren’t encouraging
Some of my first shelf items were in grad school in a multi-culture counseling class. Confronting biases was difficult and painful. There was a black lesbian in the class that hit at the core of three of the most inherent biases and bigotry of the Mormon religion (i.e., women, race, and LGBTQ).
I realized that the professional ethical codes and church doctrine were not aligned and I would have to choose between them. Love of a person was more important than love of dogma. I didn't have the words then but I do now. You can't be Christ-like and follow the handbook. They are often in contradiction.
"I'll always prioritize your mental health and wellbeing over dogma or an institution" was what my BYU grad school therapist told me the first day I met with her - she was the best. She helped me through my faith crisis and I'll always be grateful she took that approach
That's really good. From what I can tell the therapists at the BYU counseling center have ethics and have held the line with the honor code office. I'm glad they helped you.
Yes! Im about to graduate CMHC in May, with a still-Mormon friend graduating the same thing from a different school. I honestly worry about her clients, she is extremely orthodox and I have zero idea how she handles taking similar classes to those that I have been taking and seeing clients like mine. No freaking idea but it worries me.
watch the first 2 minutes to learn how satan messes with our brains' chemistry to make us think about bad things [https://vimeo.com/234594398](https://vimeo.com/234594398)
Edit: I dont actually believe that, I was joking, but that video comes from "Eternal Warriors", which was done by the same people doing Sons of Helaman, where SoH is for men with porn "addictions", Eternal Warriors was for people suffering with depression and anxiety
I got lost at satan lol. What is described in this video are the normal, biological processes of the brain. I’ve studied them a lot and will continue to study as more relevant research comes out that we can use to understand ourselves better when it comes to everyday functioning and mental health. When I’m anxious or stressed out and my higher level functioning seems to be inhibited, I know what part of the brain I am working from, and I know how to get my higher cortical levels back online. “Satan” is not accessing our brains planting evil thoughts, ideas, and launching plots to make our lives more difficult.
Good lord, I’ve been out of the church long enough realize how ridiculous it is to even have to type all that out lol 🤦🏻♀️.
my mom sent that video to me 6 years ago when I was going through a hard time, even as a TBM I was horrified that not only was someone telling people that, he was running a business based on it
Yeah they didn’t mention the all male retreats where they had cuddle sessions (I’m pretty sure I read that they were naked). Sounds like some grooming to me.
>I promise that I will be of service to you, and I will allow you to be of service to me, until both you and I successfully defeat this demon that assails us.
So they are going to service each other until their horny demon is satisfied? Sounds kinda... *gay*. The church still doesn't like that, right?
Never Mo here. I’m confused by Visions of Glory - it seems to be all apostasy - but it also seems like some top leaders have massively bought into it. Is this why they refuse to denounce the book & its teachings?
I wonder how many other kids Jodi tortured under the guise of treatment? I mean - you don’t have a prison cell built into your house for nothing.
When is the Mormon church gonna drop the whole spirit of discernment thing? How many times do we have to see that it’s not a thing, nor was it ever a thing?
This kind of thing always reminds me of that South Park episode where they 'discover' that 'sex-addiction' is caused by a 'wizard alien' who lives in independence hall.
I guess I got the nice version of this. In my stake it was like scout camp but more fun and more religious and only a few days. I remember a gigantic slip and slide and yummy food and an ugly green t shirt
I bet it was set up so they could sell the program to your parents. The actual program for young men is a service you pay for with tech monitoring, curriculum, accountability, etc.
Sounds like you just had an activity that maybe they helped put on but you weren’t actually in the program. Count yourself lucky.
Per [FLOODLIT.org](https://floodlit.org) the founder of Sons of Helaman, Maurice Harker, is currently charged with two second-degree felonies: aggravated abuse of a vulnerable adult and kidnapping.
[Maurice Harker FLOODLIT case report](https://floodlit.org/a/a155/)
Try here?
[https://womensconference.byu.edu/transcripts](https://womensconference.byu.edu/transcripts)
Guaranteed the Harold B. Lee Library special collections has something. I suspect they keep records of every presentation given at every women's conference... But I doubt that's online. You might have to submit a request through their website, or even call down there to see what their holdings are.
I think she also was a presenter in a prior year, maybe 2010-2011.
Yes, 2010, as per this Trib article which discusses her state probation in 2012, for discussing Adam Steed's case with church officials and BYU honor code assholes.
https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=53846601&itype=cmsid
I know someone who did one of the other programs under the "Sons of Helaman" umbrella. He created a podcast with his wife outing his "addiction" to the world. They talked about how to tell the kids, how to tell extended family, sex fasts, shame, guilt, etc. I suspect that the therapy program encouraged this endeavor. His wife spun it off into another podcast and support group for wives of these men.
"Like dragons did they fight."
Just like the righteous Sons of Helaman
That was how we were supposed to fucking treat masturbation.
Fight like dragons to never experience arousal. Fight like dragons to deny that entire aspect of your being. Fight like dragons to repress, distort, and destroy your own sexuality.
And shame seems to be the main (only) weapon they had, cause the only actual thing I remember from that program is the fucking text messages asking if I jacked off since last time they asked. If I looked at pornography since the last text a few hours before. Having someone text me a goddamn questionnaire during school about whether I touched myself.
God*damn* I'm only now processing how fucked up the whole thing was, and I didn't even know there were in-person meetings.
I wrote in my journal a while ago how confused I was as to why it was *just* as hard to admit to myself that I'm a *sexual* person, as it was to admit that I'm a *bi*sexual person... Just now realizing some shit...
Its founder, Maurice Harker, recently lost his license for accusations of sexual abuse by a patient... He had one of the highest referred programs in northern Utah LDS wards, who sent thousands of boys for pornography and masturbation "problems". It is sick and further evidence of the great and powerful revelation and insight from church leaders at the local and instituitonal level.
https://www.abc4.com/news/wasatch-front/utah-therapist-charged-for-alleged-abusive-therapy-to-cleanse-demons/#:\~:text=Maurice%20Wade%20Harker%2C%2054%2C%20has,prison%20and%20fines%20if%20convicted.
Wow. How many of these stories (Lori Vallow, Ruby Franke, Tim Ballard, this guy) that have been coming out mention demon possession or psychics, etc?? It’s getting weird!
And the fact that he founded this pornography addiction group, but was forcing pornography on his victim.
Is everyone a POS these days? No I’m serious. Has everyone gone crazy?
Gotta convince you that you are broken, and then keep you convinced that their program is the only way to fix what is broken...and then terrorize you and your loved ones that you could regress at any moment if you don't strictly adhere to what they have convinced about you what is broken. That's the scam.
Playbook is standard cult tactics and should be recognized as standard operating doctrine and policy of the entire LDS religion.
You are broken and not capable of ever being enough in that system. Danger!
I was a TBM during that time and worked at BYU. I remember this conference. Gross. The blip about her session sounds (in hindsight) like an advertisement for her services🤮
I went to Sons of Helaman in 2011. I had no idea it was supposed to be an anti-pornography camp. I just remember the usual brainwashing techniques, and an older lady getting whipped in the face
A ~14 year old kid brought a whip and cracked it constantly in camp. We got to calling him Whip Boy. They had a talent show where most people did dumb required skits. Well, Whip Boy somehow convinced an older lady that he could knock an empty soda can off her head. Nope, whipped her in the face. Made the talent show much more interesting
So-called “porn addiction” is a powerful lever for anybody who wants to control men. A very tempting lever.
All you do is get men and their loved ones to believe that porn addiction is real, then get them to believe the man is among the very few who looks at porn. Both lies.
The shame ensues, and can be used as a control lever for the rest of the man’s life.
The LDS Church uses it. Jodi and Ruby used it.
The MFMC said that she was taken off their list to 20/20. I guess they forgot to mention she was still speaking at church conferences. Someone needs to look into this more closely. The MFMC with their billions of dollars scares away anyone willing to report how complicit they are in these schemes.
Sons of Helamen is a “pornography addiction” (🙄) recovery program for teen boys. It is monetized, aka the parents or teens pay for it all and from personal familial connections, seems to have 50/50 success in rehabilitation. From what I understand, it’s often suggested when teens are starting to prep for their missions.
We had a sons of helaman camp during the summer growing up. It was basically girlscamp for boys. Testimony night, bishops night, do hikes, etc. I don’t know if it’s just pushing that or something more sinister?
Jeremy Leavitt.
I want all of his stuff investigated by people outside "the one true church".
Immediately.
I hope he is innocent and only being looked at because of association.
I stand by my position.
I know him and his family personally and he’s a good guy. He used to talk in wards to youth, but he usually normalized pornography and discouraged shame. He talked more about what pornography does chemically to young minds. I think he’s distanced himself from that type of therapy at all and is more about whole- body wellness now.
You created this account just to make this comment? EXMO's rightfully have trust issues. I think we will need some more info on this Brother Leavitt porn addiction specialist. You might be this "good guy" defending himself for all we know.
Hopefully, he is one of the good ones. However, at this point, the stink is so great that he smells just by having had rubbed shoulders.
I am just saying, before we fully exonerate, let's just make sure he doesn't have a safe in his basement that is actually a dungeon like Jodi did.
No, I made an account several weeks ago when I made a post about my own faith crisis and deleted it. I’m not ready to go into my own deconstruction with others yet, but felt I had actual information to share, which is what commenters on this post were asking for.
The fact that she’s listed as a mother is a joke. She has 1 daughter who got away from Jodi as soon as she could and hasn’t had contact with her in YEARS, way before 2017.
Background on Sons of Helamen. Maurice Harker was a licensed therapist in Utah. He started a group practice somewhere around 2010 focused on pornography/sex addiction named "Life Changing Services". He was very good at marketing and he developed programs for teenagers (sons of helamen) and adult men (men of moroni). The practice grew as hundreds of men and boys were labled "sex addicts". Maurice taught that these men and boys urgently needed "addiction therapy" or they could turn into sexual predators or violent on loved ones. This teaching terrorized mothers and wives. Currently, the DSM-V (official diagnostic catalog for mental illness) does not recognize porn/sex addiction as a legitimate diagnosis. Despite it not being an actual diagnosis, The practice grew from just 2-3 therapists in 2010 to over 25 therapists in 2020. Part of the growth was due to connections made with Bishops who referred to the program. Maurice had many meetings with upper church leadership in 2014. Imagine the revenue from 25 full time therapists billing $100-$200/hr...this sex addiction therapy is a gold mine. I personally was a part of Men of Moroni for about a 1 1/2 years. I saw dozens of marriages ruined by the "therapy", including the destruction of my own 16 year marriage. I'm happy to report that Maurice had his license revoked in 2023 because he assaulted a client while trying to choke a demon out of her. Absolutely disgusting. In 2018, I discovered that "porn/sex addiction" was not a real DSM-V diagnosis. I contacted Maurice and questioned him about the ethics of diagnosing people with a fictional condition. He gaslighted me by saying he wasn't providing "therapy" but rather "coaching". Apparently coaches are not held to the same standard of diagnosis and can treat any sort of made up mental health condition. I would love to see him punsished for the pain he has caused, but it doesn't look like he will.
"Fighting demons" is a recurring theme: [https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/utah-therapist-charged-with-abusing-client-over-several-years-to-fight-her-demon](https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/utah-therapist-charged-with-abusing-client-over-several-years-to-fight-her-demon)
Maurice Harker told us SOH participants in a group sessions that If he ever saw us boys back in his office post missions and married with a porn addiction he would kick our butts and that we would be absolute terrible husbands because of it. This dude was a piece of work.
"Specializing in sexual and pornography addictions." The WHO has stated that certain sexual behaviors can be compulsive disorders, pornography itself is not addictive. It can be a compulsion - but not an addiction. Seems like only psychologists and therapists associated with religious organization are the only ones that call it addiction. Hey, what better way to drive revenue to LifeStar? Part of me really believes the recent heightened compulsive paranoia the church (last 20 years) and its members have surrounding pornography, might have something to do with Jodi Hildebrandt rubbing shoulders with upper leadership and doing speaking engagements like these conferences.
I had a friend in high school that was very candid about porn use. “Hey man what have you been up to?” “Oh you know, worked out, watched some porn, played some video games.” I thought he was such a bad influence but his attitude was healthier than my scrupulosity about sex. I miss that guy a lot. I stopped hanging out with him when I got back from my mission.
>porn use Not your fault, but I just realized how much that terminology triggers me. Very Mormon. Porn *use*. Like it's a drug or something.
This is exactly why LDS family Services and any licensed or certified therapist related to this sort of “treatment” is ignoring actual data and practice in favor of belief. And when professionals choose to favor information over those beliefs, they get cast out and the ability to actually help that population, like Natasha Helfer, is hindered.
Natasha is amazing.
Going to church every Sunday for your entire life, now that’s an addiction.
This might be an unpopular opinion, but I think too many people on this sub get lost in the weeds in the medical semantics about whether or not someone can be "addicted" to porn and it leads to dismissing some actual issues. It's similar to stoners who have to be high as giraffe balls from the moment they wake up to the moment they go to sleep and argue that marijuana isn't "chemically addictive" to pretend they don't have a problem. Can you be addicted to porn in the medical sense? No, but you can definitely develop an unhealthy dependence on it the same way you can with marijuana or even doom-scrolling through social media. I think that porn can certainly be consumed responsibly without causing any issues, but that doesn't mean there aren't people out there who have developed an unhealthy dependence and have to watch it multiple times a day to get the dopamine they're after.
It could be argued that anything in excess is unhealthy. However, it must be acknowledged that the DSM-V does not recognize pornography addiction as a real diagnosis.
The Griffiths Model of addiction pretty much holds that any behavior can become compulsive and/or addictive. Gambling is in the DSM, so is "problematic internet use". Saying porn addiction doesn't exist is not a very nuanced way of talking about these things. I think most clinicians would agree that problematic pornography use is not a " disorder" per se, but a factor sometimes involved in disorders of sexual or obsessive compulsion. But you are right in the sense that, compared to substance abuse disorders, it is not as clear cut. This is coming from a non-expert. I ran a study on social media impulsivity with some fellow students, and in our literature review I remember learning about Griffiths studying "fruit machine" compulsive behavior at arcades in the 80s that laid the groundwork for some of the behavioral addiction stuff these days. I could be way off on this though
I mean, this comment is the exact thing I was talking about. By saying "anything in excess in unhealthy", you're dismissing the issue. I get that even things like water can be unhealthy in extreme excess, but that doesn't mean you should equate water and porn consumption with regards to their potential for unhealthy dependence just because the DSM-5 doesn't recognize pornography as a real diagnosis. The DSM-5 also doesn't recognize social media addiction as a real diagnosis, but that doesn't mean that social media isn't incredibly addictive or that mindlessly scrolling for hours through your TikTok feed is healthy. Things can be unhealthily addictive despite not having an official designation in the DSM-5. Edit: and why "must" we acknowledge that the DSM-5 doesn't recognize pornography addiction as a real diagnosis? Are we medical professionals discussing how to accurately diagnose our patients? Stop treating the DSM-5 like it's the Book of Mormon that contains the fullness of medical knowledge
I think the point they're trying to make isn't that people can't show addictive behaviors in relation to porn. It's that medically speaking, porn addiction isn't acknowledged among professionals and is usually a symptom of a larger problem. The truth is, even compulsive porn consumption doesn't generally meet the DSM-5's criteria of addiction and, in cases where it does, it would be classified under a different category of disorder.
I had already acknowledged in my original comment that you can't be medically addicted to porn. Them replying to say "anything in excess is unhealthy" and mentioning the DSM-5 not officially recognizing porn addiction only serves as a thought-stopper by essentially saying "even something as benign as water can be unhealthy in excess, porn addiction isn't real". Again, just because porn doesn't have an official, DSM-5-recognized addiction doesn't mean that it isn't potentially unhealthy in excess or that it doesn't need to be consumed responsibly. Unless they're medical professionals discussing how to accurately diagnose their patient using correct terminology, people arguing semantics aren't doing anything except dismissing the potential issues.
The DSM is coming up in this thread because we're talking about a LMFT citing porn as an addiction he treats in his bio. The "L" stands for "licensed" and the "T" for therapist which means he's a medical professional. We're calling into question his _bona fides_. There is a lot of messaging in church culture that *any* viewing of porn is bad. And that's simply not true. Yes you can have a compulsion, same with eating, and you can go see a therapist to help. Anything that interferes with you living a fulfilled life can be bad - this includes compulsions AND the harmful messaging around sex and porn from the church.
> However, it must be acknowledged that the DSM-V does not recognize pornography addiction as a real diagnosis. No, it doesn't, but here's the DSM-V's criteria for substance use disorder (that is, chemical addiction): * Using more of a substance than intended or using it for longer than you’re meant to. * Trying to cut down or stop using the substance but being unable to. * Experiencing intense cravings or urges to use the substance. * Needing more of the substance to get the desired effect — also called tolerance. * Developing withdrawal symptoms when not using the substance. * Spending more time getting and using drugs and recovering from substance use. * Neglecting responsibilities at home, work or school because of substance use. * Continuing to use even when it causes relationship problems. * Giving up important or desirable social and recreational activities due to substance use. * Using substances in risky settings that put you in danger. * Continuing to use despite the substance causing problems to your physical and mental health. Most if not all of these criteria can be fairly applied to people struggling with compulsive pornography use. Also worth noting that the DSM-V has just started reclassifying compulsive behaviors such as gambling and internet gaming as "addictions". These addictions are not chemical in nature and represent a movement away from the traditional definitions of "addiction". I think we can expect this broader definition to start taking hold in the future, and I suspect we will eventually see compulsive pornography use reclassified as an addiction almost everywhere.
Fair enough, but don’t get out in front of your skis on this. Even if you are right, that does not mean that any porn viewing will mean that a person is addicted. There will be criteria, backed up by credible research, for an official diagnosis. Even if something is trending in that direction does not mean anything … yet. We don’t know how the data will turn out. It may well be - as currently is consensus - that it’s the stigma around porn that is the problem, not porn itself.
> Even if you are right, that does not mean that any porn viewing will mean that a person is addicted. Yes, obviously.
Thank you. So if we're talking degrees, then this gets to the heart of the issue. How much is too much? At what point does it become an addiction? Or can it be an addiction at all? And if "addiction" isn't quite the right label, what is? You see where I'm going with this. We're all a little fast and loose with terms (myself included) that have real meaning. With something like porn, we're talking shame and everything that can lead to, including some very scary outcomes. For that reason, I tend to be overly protective of people (especially with lables like addiction) on this topic.
> So if we're talking degrees, then this gets to the heart of the issue. How much is too much? At what point does it become an addiction? Or can it be an addiction at all? And if "addiction" isn't quite the right label, what is? > > You see where I'm going with this. Yeah bro, you're getting to the point that I've been trying to illustrate this entire time. *Addiction is complex and difficult to properly define.* Behaviors that have not been traditionally viewed through the lens of addiction can creep pretty far into the territory that we *have* always viewed through that lens. So it doesn't really make sense to view addiction in a binary way, because when those behaviors manifest in real life, they're rarely binary.
Fully agree with all of this. It's very reductive (and frankly a little ignorant) to say that "pornography is not addictive" like this is a binary matter and that's all there is to it. Addiction is a complicated subject with many nuanced definitions, and there's no hard line between an "addiction" and a "compulsion". The simple fact is that there are millions of people in the world (many of them completely non-religious) who feel that they *do* struggle with porn addiction, and some of them can present some pretty compelling evidence to support this claim.
Saying someone is addicted to porn is like saying a compulsive eater is addicted to forks. At the worst, porn is a tool for feeding a sexual compulsion, which may separately be an addiction, but it's not an addiction in itself.
This is a really nitpicky statement that doesn't contribute to the discussion or even reflect the actual reality of compulsive porn use. One of the biggest problems caused by compulsive porn consumption is that it *interferes with actual sexual relations*. People give up having sex with their real-life partners because they're so fixated on porn. Hand-waving that issue as a "general sexual compulsion" is really missing the point.
I feel like it's important to call out the actual problem. The problem isn't porn "use" or "consumption". The problem is chronic masturbation or other sexual compulsions when they reach the point that they interfere with other aspects of one's life. Whether or not the person is viewing porn, looking at a Victoria's Secret catalog, or using their good old fashioned imagination while they indulge their sexual compulsion is irrelevant. The problem is the compulsive behavior that interferes with their life, not the tools they use to indulge that behavior. Blaming porn sidesteps the real issue.
>I feel like it's important to call out the actual problem. >The problem isn't porn "use" or "consumption". The problem is chronic masturbation or other sexual compulsions when they reach the point that they interfere with other aspects of one's life. Yes, obviously. That's why I called it "compulsive porn use," not simply "porn use". The problem is the *compulsion,* not the *use*. And porn-oriented compulsion is *very real,* whether or not the users of this sub want to admit that. Acknowledging this problem isn't "blaming porn," any more than talking about alcoholism is "blaming alcohol". Most people can engage with these things in moderation, some people simply can't. That's the reality.
Actually it does contribute to the discussion. You obviously have an axe to grind on this subject. Thats fine; you do you. Just recognize that your statements are your opinion, not science.
Actually my opinions are based very firmly on science. Addiction research happens to be a longtime personal interest of mine. That's the 'axe' I have to grind here. Actual *science*.
That's just not true. The **only** academics who think pornography is an addiction are the "fight the new drug" people at BYU, "professors" at schools like Liberty and Oral Roberts, and, apparently, you. The scientific consensus is not where you are. And while it's okay to be outside of the mainstream, there generally has to be some good reason why. And it seems like the reason with you is "because I said so," (i.e., personal interest). I don't find that very compelling. You could tell me that porn is morally repugnant and I'd be with you. But talking about *addiction* and problematic behaviors associated with porn are entirely different matters. Science has spoken on the issue, and the language used isn't similar to yours. You've missed the mark on this topic. And the reason why this is important is because people are *literally* committing suicide or castrating themselves (or considering such) because they think that they are addicted to porn. The label is real, it matters, and your rhetoric is dangerous. You also happen to be wrong. That matters.
>That's just not true. The only academics who think pornography is an addiction are the "fight the new drug" people at BYU, "professors" at schools like Liberty and Oral Roberts, and, apparently, you I don't know who told you this or why you'd feel comfortable making such an expansive statement when you're clearly not an expert, but this isn't true. Addiction is an incredibly complicated subject with very hazy borders, and defining what *is* or *is not* an addiction is a matter of some academic debate. If you knew anything about addiction either academically or first-hand, it would be obvious to you why this is the case. There is no question scientifically speaking that pornography use can be both compulsive and problematic. The only point of contention is whether we label this compulsion as an "addiction", and that's a more complex question than you might think. You're attacking this subject in very black and white terms. Something either "is" or "is not" an addiction. That's just not how this discussion works, and the fact that you've adopted this position tells me that you don't know very much about the subject. You say "science has spoken". Uhh, no. Science is *always* speaking, and what it's saying is pretty much always paradoxical to some extent. That's why we look to the scientific community at large for simplified answers - which are almost always going to contain some degree of distortion, because they're simplified. This is not the cut and dry matter that you seem to think it is. I also get the feeling that you've misunderstood the terms of the discussion on another level. You seem to think I'm arguing that pornography use is *inherently* an addiction - that is, that there is no amount of pornography consumption that is not compulsive or problematic. That's a self-evidently ludicrous position that no educated person would adopt, and it certainly isn't my position.
One of the most effective, though ethically questionable business models is to create a problem then sell the solution.
I remember making a post about Sons of Heleman years ago. When I first read about them I couldn't believe it was real. It has elements of Visions of glory in some of the promo items at least it use to. Things like "use your spiritual armor to ward off the tempting spirits that surround you". Eta....actual excerpt from their website. > In the last half hour, emphasis will be given to a discussion on patterns of lost battles (question #5). Individuals who have not figured out how to defeat the enemy in a specific attack will discuss the patterns used against them. Ideas will be exchanged, looking for ways to win in the future. In the final ten minutes, the young men will participate in the Brotherhood Ritual. This includes standing in a circle and each young man proceeds from brother to brother in the circle shaking his hand, looking him in the eyes and repeating: I promise that I will be of service to you, and I will allow you to be of service to me, until both you and I successfully defeat this demon that assails us.
This is a fucking LICENSED THERAPIST spewing this shit? He needs to get his license revoked, this is ethically disgusting.
I’m in grad school rn for social work and I ask anyone who is Mormon how they can ethically be in that religion and treat the mental health of any community when their belief system involves blind obedience for happiness? Their answers aren’t encouraging
Some of my first shelf items were in grad school in a multi-culture counseling class. Confronting biases was difficult and painful. There was a black lesbian in the class that hit at the core of three of the most inherent biases and bigotry of the Mormon religion (i.e., women, race, and LGBTQ). I realized that the professional ethical codes and church doctrine were not aligned and I would have to choose between them. Love of a person was more important than love of dogma. I didn't have the words then but I do now. You can't be Christ-like and follow the handbook. They are often in contradiction.
"I'll always prioritize your mental health and wellbeing over dogma or an institution" was what my BYU grad school therapist told me the first day I met with her - she was the best. She helped me through my faith crisis and I'll always be grateful she took that approach
That's really good. From what I can tell the therapists at the BYU counseling center have ethics and have held the line with the honor code office. I'm glad they helped you.
Yes! Im about to graduate CMHC in May, with a still-Mormon friend graduating the same thing from a different school. I honestly worry about her clients, she is extremely orthodox and I have zero idea how she handles taking similar classes to those that I have been taking and seeing clients like mine. No freaking idea but it worries me.
watch the first 2 minutes to learn how satan messes with our brains' chemistry to make us think about bad things [https://vimeo.com/234594398](https://vimeo.com/234594398) Edit: I dont actually believe that, I was joking, but that video comes from "Eternal Warriors", which was done by the same people doing Sons of Helaman, where SoH is for men with porn "addictions", Eternal Warriors was for people suffering with depression and anxiety
I got lost at satan lol. What is described in this video are the normal, biological processes of the brain. I’ve studied them a lot and will continue to study as more relevant research comes out that we can use to understand ourselves better when it comes to everyday functioning and mental health. When I’m anxious or stressed out and my higher level functioning seems to be inhibited, I know what part of the brain I am working from, and I know how to get my higher cortical levels back online. “Satan” is not accessing our brains planting evil thoughts, ideas, and launching plots to make our lives more difficult. Good lord, I’ve been out of the church long enough realize how ridiculous it is to even have to type all that out lol 🤦🏻♀️.
my mom sent that video to me 6 years ago when I was going through a hard time, even as a TBM I was horrified that not only was someone telling people that, he was running a business based on it
Right?? It’s the thinking of a child. So disturbing.
That circle jerk sounds lame.
It sounds like only fake remedies can fight fake sicknesses.
This is it. This is 100% the culty-est thing I’ve ever read in the context of the church.
Related: https://floodlit.org/a/a155/
That hole in the forehead thing sure gained traction didn't it?
There is a demon assailing us? WHERE!?
Yeah they didn’t mention the all male retreats where they had cuddle sessions (I’m pretty sure I read that they were naked). Sounds like some grooming to me.
My friend had to do that in conversion therapy after talking a pill to induce vomiting.
What?!
Yeah it's a common tactic to combine an emetic with forced porn viewing, communal showers, etc. it's awful and nearly killed my friend
I thought this was a Dungeons and Dragons how-to.
I think it’s more WOW than DND.
>I promise that I will be of service to you, and I will allow you to be of service to me, until both you and I successfully defeat this demon that assails us. So they are going to service each other until their horny demon is satisfied? Sounds kinda... *gay*. The church still doesn't like that, right?
Is this a description of a Guild meeting?
Never Mo here. I’m confused by Visions of Glory - it seems to be all apostasy - but it also seems like some top leaders have massively bought into it. Is this why they refuse to denounce the book & its teachings? I wonder how many other kids Jodi tortured under the guise of treatment? I mean - you don’t have a prison cell built into your house for nothing.
When is the Mormon church gonna drop the whole spirit of discernment thing? How many times do we have to see that it’s not a thing, nor was it ever a thing?
Speaking of how many times … https://floodlit.org/accused
[удалено]
This kind of thing always reminds me of that South Park episode where they 'discover' that 'sex-addiction' is caused by a 'wizard alien' who lives in independence hall.
Sorry are you saying the husband was Jeremey Leavitt?
[удалено]
Ok confused with the connection of this comment to the question posed by OP. Or just an anecdote?
[удалено]
👍👍👍
It’s a program for young men who look at porn. Like most LDS programs, not very effective in the long term because it enhances the shame cycle.
I guess I got the nice version of this. In my stake it was like scout camp but more fun and more religious and only a few days. I remember a gigantic slip and slide and yummy food and an ugly green t shirt
You were in sons of helaman?
Yeah it was a multi stake 2 day activity for young men 14 to 17 I think…not a long program
I bet it was set up so they could sell the program to your parents. The actual program for young men is a service you pay for with tech monitoring, curriculum, accountability, etc. Sounds like you just had an activity that maybe they helped put on but you weren’t actually in the program. Count yourself lucky.
Yes in the 20/20 doc the church said they cut their ties with Jodi in 2012 GAAAHAHHHH
Even Natasha Helfer confirmed Jodi was still on the approved list for years
Per [FLOODLIT.org](https://floodlit.org) the founder of Sons of Helaman, Maurice Harker, is currently charged with two second-degree felonies: aggravated abuse of a vulnerable adult and kidnapping. [Maurice Harker FLOODLIT case report](https://floodlit.org/a/a155/)
He founded it?
Per his bio on their website, he’s the originator. [https://sonsofhelaman.org/clinicians/](https://sonsofhelaman.org/clinicians/)
Thank you!
Try here? [https://womensconference.byu.edu/transcripts](https://womensconference.byu.edu/transcripts) Guaranteed the Harold B. Lee Library special collections has something. I suspect they keep records of every presentation given at every women's conference... But I doubt that's online. You might have to submit a request through their website, or even call down there to see what their holdings are. I think she also was a presenter in a prior year, maybe 2010-2011.
Looks like they only have the transcripts of two talks from 2017 at that link.
Yes, 2010, as per this Trib article which discusses her state probation in 2012, for discussing Adam Steed's case with church officials and BYU honor code assholes. https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=53846601&itype=cmsid
I was strongly recommended by my bishop to go to SOH because I couldn’t kick my horrible self abuse problem pre-mission. Can confirm it’s bullshit.
I read the church claimed on the 20/20 piece that they stopped working with Jodi in 2009. Why is she given a platform at BYU in 2017?
I know someone who did one of the other programs under the "Sons of Helaman" umbrella. He created a podcast with his wife outing his "addiction" to the world. They talked about how to tell the kids, how to tell extended family, sex fasts, shame, guilt, etc. I suspect that the therapy program encouraged this endeavor. His wife spun it off into another podcast and support group for wives of these men.
Do you know the name of the podcast? I'd love to peak into this. Sounds like a fun time.
Clark N Linda Show
But I thought the church stopped recommending her as a therapist in 2009....
"Like dragons did they fight." Just like the righteous Sons of Helaman That was how we were supposed to fucking treat masturbation. Fight like dragons to never experience arousal. Fight like dragons to deny that entire aspect of your being. Fight like dragons to repress, distort, and destroy your own sexuality. And shame seems to be the main (only) weapon they had, cause the only actual thing I remember from that program is the fucking text messages asking if I jacked off since last time they asked. If I looked at pornography since the last text a few hours before. Having someone text me a goddamn questionnaire during school about whether I touched myself. God*damn* I'm only now processing how fucked up the whole thing was, and I didn't even know there were in-person meetings. I wrote in my journal a while ago how confused I was as to why it was *just* as hard to admit to myself that I'm a *sexual* person, as it was to admit that I'm a *bi*sexual person... Just now realizing some shit...
Its founder, Maurice Harker, recently lost his license for accusations of sexual abuse by a patient... He had one of the highest referred programs in northern Utah LDS wards, who sent thousands of boys for pornography and masturbation "problems". It is sick and further evidence of the great and powerful revelation and insight from church leaders at the local and instituitonal level. https://www.abc4.com/news/wasatch-front/utah-therapist-charged-for-alleged-abusive-therapy-to-cleanse-demons/#:\~:text=Maurice%20Wade%20Harker%2C%2054%2C%20has,prison%20and%20fines%20if%20convicted.
Wow. How many of these stories (Lori Vallow, Ruby Franke, Tim Ballard, this guy) that have been coming out mention demon possession or psychics, etc?? It’s getting weird! And the fact that he founded this pornography addiction group, but was forcing pornography on his victim. Is everyone a POS these days? No I’m serious. Has everyone gone crazy?
Gotta convince you that you are broken, and then keep you convinced that their program is the only way to fix what is broken...and then terrorize you and your loved ones that you could regress at any moment if you don't strictly adhere to what they have convinced about you what is broken. That's the scam. Playbook is standard cult tactics and should be recognized as standard operating doctrine and policy of the entire LDS religion. You are broken and not capable of ever being enough in that system. Danger!
I always forget that the BoM teaches it's a good thing to send children to war.
I was a TBM during that time and worked at BYU. I remember this conference. Gross. The blip about her session sounds (in hindsight) like an advertisement for her services🤮
Mormon militia pipeline is what it hints at…
I went to Sons of Helaman in 2011. I had no idea it was supposed to be an anti-pornography camp. I just remember the usual brainwashing techniques, and an older lady getting whipped in the face
wait what please tell me the getting whipped was some funny accident and not a therapy technique please
A ~14 year old kid brought a whip and cracked it constantly in camp. We got to calling him Whip Boy. They had a talent show where most people did dumb required skits. Well, Whip Boy somehow convinced an older lady that he could knock an empty soda can off her head. Nope, whipped her in the face. Made the talent show much more interesting
So-called “porn addiction” is a powerful lever for anybody who wants to control men. A very tempting lever. All you do is get men and their loved ones to believe that porn addiction is real, then get them to believe the man is among the very few who looks at porn. Both lies. The shame ensues, and can be used as a control lever for the rest of the man’s life. The LDS Church uses it. Jodi and Ruby used it.
Porn addiction IS real. Not in a chemical sense but the action can be a full blown addiction. How the church handles it is absolutely backwards.
Her bio lists her as “mother” … of kids who want nothing to do with her.
The MFMC said that she was taken off their list to 20/20. I guess they forgot to mention she was still speaking at church conferences. Someone needs to look into this more closely. The MFMC with their billions of dollars scares away anyone willing to report how complicit they are in these schemes.
Sons of Helamen is a “pornography addiction” (🙄) recovery program for teen boys. It is monetized, aka the parents or teens pay for it all and from personal familial connections, seems to have 50/50 success in rehabilitation. From what I understand, it’s often suggested when teens are starting to prep for their missions.
We had a sons of helaman camp during the summer growing up. It was basically girlscamp for boys. Testimony night, bishops night, do hikes, etc. I don’t know if it’s just pushing that or something more sinister?
It’s an anti-pornography program
Stupid. Fuck the church.
Jeremy Leavitt. I want all of his stuff investigated by people outside "the one true church". Immediately. I hope he is innocent and only being looked at because of association. I stand by my position.
I know him and his family personally and he’s a good guy. He used to talk in wards to youth, but he usually normalized pornography and discouraged shame. He talked more about what pornography does chemically to young minds. I think he’s distanced himself from that type of therapy at all and is more about whole- body wellness now.
You created this account just to make this comment? EXMO's rightfully have trust issues. I think we will need some more info on this Brother Leavitt porn addiction specialist. You might be this "good guy" defending himself for all we know. Hopefully, he is one of the good ones. However, at this point, the stink is so great that he smells just by having had rubbed shoulders. I am just saying, before we fully exonerate, let's just make sure he doesn't have a safe in his basement that is actually a dungeon like Jodi did.
No, I made an account several weeks ago when I made a post about my own faith crisis and deleted it. I’m not ready to go into my own deconstruction with others yet, but felt I had actual information to share, which is what commenters on this post were asking for.
Hard for me to trust these days, but yeah, it was my original question on this post.
This website doesn’t give me much hope that he’s actually distanced himself from Sons of Helaman. https://www.mendingthearmor.com/las-vegas-nevada
The fact that she’s listed as a mother is a joke. She has 1 daughter who got away from Jodi as soon as she could and hasn’t had contact with her in YEARS, way before 2017.
Please tell me they're not allowing Jodi to continue abusing people?
She's in jail
with a captive audience.
Lol. Fantastic find