VIEWING ABHORRENT FORMS OF PORNOPRAPHY

VIEWING ABHORRENT FORMS OF PORNOGRAPHY

No one can deny that pornography is bad and that Christians must shun it. In the early 1990s, it became easier to view pornography because of the Internet, and in 1971, the first article in The Watchtower warning about pornography appeared. Other warning articles followed, and this was the right thing to do because elders must warn the congregation members of any looming dangers. However, the way the Governing Body has treated pornography, as we see in the book for elders “Shepherd The Flock Of God” is a clear violation of the Bible.

1971-2006: WARNINGS ABOUT PORNOGRAPHY—BUT NO DISFELLOWSHIPPING OFFENSE

Awake! of November 22, 1973, pages 27-28, discusses pornography and the article shows that viewing pornography is a bad thing that can cause harm to the viewer. The article says on page 28:

Pornography can even make one guilty of the sin of idolatry. How can that be? Because it promotes a form of covetousness, “which is idolatry.” (Col.3:5)

Idolatry is a disfellowshipping offense according to 1 Corinthians 6:10, and the view of the members of the Governing Body is that in some situations viewing pornography is idolatry. But the article does not say that viewing pornography is a disfellowshipping offense. The Watchtower of December 15, 1975, page 756, discusses the Christian congregation and says:

Thus, it fortifies its love of purity. It cannot, therefore, look with sexual gratification upon pornographic literature or movies or television.​

Awake! of September 8, 1991, page 19, says:

Pornography reduces humans to the level of animals acting solely on instinct. It does not encourage self-control, a fruit of God’s spirit. (Galatians 5:22, 23)  It may pave the way for sexual perversions. These are but a few of the reasons why Christians shun pornography.

Awake! of  July 8, 2002, page 21, says:

Paul here links sexual appetite with covetousness, which is an inordinate desire for something that one does not have. [Footnote: Paul was not here talking about normal sexual appetite​—the desire to have normal sexual intimacy with one’s marriage mate.] Covetousness is a form of idolatry. Why? Because the one coveting puts that desired thing before all else, including God…

There is nothing harmless about pornography. It is exploitive and corrupting. It can destroy relationships, perverting the natural expression of sexual intimacy into a voyeuristic activity. It poisons the mind and spirituality of the voyeur. It promotes selfish, greedy attitudes and teaches people to view others as objects fit only to satisfy their lust. It undermines efforts to do good and have a clean conscience. Most important, it can hamper or even destroy one’s spiritual relationship with God. (Ephesians 4:17-19) Truly, pornography is a scourge to be avoided.​—Proverbs 4:14, 15.

The Awake! magazine of  September 8, 1991, says that Christians must shun pornography, and Awake! of  July 8, 2002 links pornography with covetousness, which is a form of idolatry. All the quotations above show that pornography is bad for Christians and that it must be shunned. But pornography is not said to be a disfellowshipping offense.

2006-2023: VIEWING ABHORRENT FORMS OF PORNOGRAPHY—A DISFELLOWSHIPPING OFFENSE

In January 2006, there was a course for elders, and it had so many talks about pornography that we dubbed it “the porn course.” It was explained that from now on viewing abhorrent forms of pornography was a disfellowshipping offense. Different forms of pornography that should be viewed as abhorrent in contrast with other forms were discussed.

A letter from the branch office in Norway of June 21, 2006, to all bodies of elders listed the following abhorrent forms of pornography as “gross uncleanness”: child pornography, sadistic torture, sadomasochistic sex, gang rape, and the brutalizing of women. The letter continued:

In addition, to view heterosexual oral or anal sex (in a film or on a computer) is clearly uncleanness. But it should not be viewed as “gross uncleanness” that must be handled judicially. But it can lead to the removing from the list of an elder, a ministerial servant, or a pioneer, depending on how often it has occurred and when it last happened. If someone views homosexual oral (or anal) sex or such forms of group sex, it is more serious. But this shall neither be viewed as “gross immorality” that must be handled judicially. However, it is likely that the person will lose his service-privileges in the congregation.

The decisions that the Governing Body had made regarding pornography were published in The Watchtower of July 15, 2006, page 30. We read:

Some Christians have become involved in the viewing of pornography. This is offensive to God, and the elders may be shocked that a fellow believer has done this. But not all viewing of pornography calls for a hearing before a judicial committee. For example, suppose a brother viewed so-called soft-core pornography on several occasions. He is ashamed, confesses to an elder, and is determined not to repeat this sin. The elder might well conclude that the brother’s conduct did not escalate to the point that he engaged in “uncleanness . . . with greediness”; nor did he display a brazen attitude, indicating loose conduct. Although no judicial action would be warranted, this type of uncleanness would call for strong Scriptural counsel and perhaps follow-up help from the elders.

However, suppose a Christian has secretly viewed abhorrent, sexually degrading pornography for years and has done everything possible to conceal this sin. Such pornography might feature gang rape, bondage, sadistic torture, the brutalizing of women, or even child pornography. When others become aware of his conduct, he is deeply ashamed. He has not been brazen, but the elders may determine that he has ‘given himself over’ to this filthy habit and has practiced ‘uncleanness with greediness,’ that is, ‘gross uncleanness’. A judicial committee would be formed because gross uncleanness is involved. The wrongdoer would be disfellowshipped if he did not display godly repentance and the determination never to view pornography again. If he invited others to his home to view pornography​—in effect, promoting it—​he would give evidence of a brazen attitude characterizing loose conduct.

When we compare the letter of June 21, 2006, with The Watchtower of July 15, 2006, we see that both agree. Homosexual sex and group sex are not included in the abhorrent forms of pornography that can lead to disfellowshipping. However, The Watchtower of March 15,  2012, page 30, answered a question about pornography, and here there are some differences compared with the letter of June 21, 2006, and The Watchtower of July 15, 2006—homosexual sex and group sex are now included as disfellowshipping offenses:

Could a Christian’s practice of viewing pornography become so bad that it results in his being expelled from the Christian congregation?…

However, the apostle Paul said that some who sinned did not repent “over their uncleanness and fornication and loose conduct.” (2 Cor. 12:21)  Regarding the Greek term there rendered “uncleanness,” Professor Marvin R. Vincent wrote that it has “the sense of impurity on the side of sordidness.” It is a sad fact that some pornography is much worse than scenes of nakedness or of a man and woman engaging in fornication. There is sordid, abhorrent pornography involving homosexuality (sex between those of the same gender), group sex, bestiality, child pornography, gang rape, the brutalizing of women, bondage, or sadistic torture. Some in Paul’s day who were “in darkness mentally” came to be “past all moral sense [and] gave themselves over to loose conduct to work uncleanness of every sort with greediness.”​— Eph. 4:18, 19.

Paul also mentioned “uncleanness” at Galatians 5:19.  A British scholar noted that it “may here [signify] more especially all unnatural lusts.” What Christian would deny that the above-mentioned abhorrent, sexually degrading forms of pornography are “unnatural lusts” and are sordid? Paul concluded at Galatians 5:18-21   that “those who practice” such uncleanness “will not inherit God’s kingdom.” Consequently, if someone developed an entrenched practice of viewing abhorrent, sexually degrading pornography, perhaps over a considerable period of time, and would not repent and turn around, he could not remain in the Christian congregation. He would have to be disfellowshipped in order to preserve the cleanness and spirit of the congregation.​— 1 Cor, 5:5, 11.

The definition of “abhorrent forms of pornography” is the same in “Shepherd The Flock Of God” as in The Watchtower of March 15, 2012. The book says 13.3:

An entrenched practice of viewing, perhaps over a considerable period of time, abhorrent forms of pornography would be considered gross uncleanness with greediness and needs to be handled judicially. (Eph. 4:19) Such abhorrent forms of pornography include homosexuality (sex between those of the same gender), group sex, bestiality, sadistic torture, bondage, gang rape, the brutalizing of women, or child pornography. It is equally wrong for a man or woman to watch two women engaged in homosexual activity as it is for man or woman to watch two men engaged in homosexual activity. See 12:14–15.

The arbitrariness of the disfellowshipping offense of viewing abhorrent forms of pornography that were made up and invented in 2006 is seen in table 1.1. The column to the left refers to the letter of  June 21, 2006, the second column has the forms listed in The Watchtower of July 15, 2006. The third column has the forms listed in The Watchtower of March 15, 2012, and the fourth column has the forms listed in “Shepherd The Flock Of God”. The “Yes” means that viewing the form of pornography is listed as a disfellowshipping offense. The “No” means that the form of pornography is said  not to be a disfellowshipping offense. The hyphen shows that the particular form is not listed in the source.

Table 1.1 Abhorrent forms of pornography

The biggest difference is that the letter of June 21, 2006, says that viewing homosexual actions and group sex is not viewed as disfellowshipping offenses. The Watchtower of June 21, 2006, does not mention either of these. Seeing bondage is mentioned in The Watchtower of 2006 as a disfellowshipping offense, but bondage is not mentioned in the letter of 2006.  The Watchtower of March 15, 2012, and the Shepherd book mention homosexual and group sex films as gross uncleanness and disfellowshipping offenses. Sadomasochistic sex is only mentioned in the letter of  June 21, 2006, and bestiality is only mentioned in The Watchtower of March 15, 2012, and in the Shepherd book.

THE NEW LAW OF ABHORRENT FORMS OF PORNOGRAPHY WAS GIVEN A RETROACTIVE FORCE

THE ARBITRARINESS AND AMBIGUITY OF THE DEFINITIONS OF THE GOVERNING BODY

I will apply the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:9 to the definitions of abhorrent forms of pornography. He writes:

In the same way, unless you with the tongue use speech that is easily understood, how will anyone know what is being said? You will, in fact, be speaking into the air.

Some brothers who are elders today lived an unchristian life before they became Witnesses. But because I know a great number of elders in Norway, I assume that most elders have no experience with or even an idea of what several of the abhorrent forms of pornography entail. And what about the members of the Governing Body? Do they have personal experience so as to know exactly what each abhorrent form actually involves? If not, the Governing Body has been “speaking” into the air.” And the elders who use the definitions of the Governing Body are “speaking into the air” as well. As it relates to these definitions, this may be a case of the blind leading the blind. How can the elders make a balanced judgment if they do not know the meaning of the law they use as the basis for judgment, or if the language of the law is unclear?

Nine different forms of abhorrent pornography have been mentioned in the literature since 2006. Two of these seem to me to be relatively easy to identify, namely, sadistic torture and gang rape. I do not know how such actions are portrayed in pornographic films. But I think there may be a difference between films that feature the mentioned actions throughout, and films where only one scene in the movie portrays sadistic torture or gang rape. Will a brother be guilty of viewing abhorrent pornography if he does not stop the film when such a scene is shown? This illustrates that members of a judicial committee must still make decisions in “grey areas” even when the definitions of particular actions are quite clear.

The next form is Sadomasochistic sex. I have no idea of the meaning of this kind of sex. But I found the following definition on the Internet: “The derivation of sexual gratification from the infliction of physical pain or humiliation either on another person or on oneself.”[1] I assume that infliction of physical pain can be seen in many instances in a pornographic film.  But is it easy to distinguish between mild or moderate pain and intense or severe pain? And does a small amount of pain fit the definition? And what about humiliation? How can that be expressed in a film? The elders may ask: Was anyone afflicted with pain or humiliated in the films you have viewed? And if so, was the affliction of pain or the humiliation, voluntary or forced? To give a clear answer to these questions can be difficult. This ambiguity may also be the reason why “sadomasochistic sex” is only mentioned in the letter of June 21, 2006 but is omitted from subsequent lists.

The next problem is related to the concept of bondage. What actually does it mean?

I found the following definition in the Wikipedia:

Bondage, in the BDSM subculture, is the practice of consensually tying, binding, or restraining a partner for erotic, aesthetic, or somatosensory stimulation. A partner may be physically restrained in a variety of ways, including the use of rope, cuffs, bondage tape, or self-adhering bandage.

Bondage itself does not necessarily imply sadomasochism. Bondage may be used as an end in itself, as in the case of rope bondage  and breast bondage. It may also be used as a part of sex  or in conjunction with other BDSM activities. The letter “B” in the acronym “BDSM” comes from the word “bondage”.  Sexuality and erotica are an important aspect in bondage, but are often not the end in itself. Aesthetics also plays an important role in bondage.

A common reason for the active partner to tie up their partner is so both may gain pleasure from the restrained partner’s submission and the feeling of the temporary transfer of control and power. For sadomasochistic people, bondage is often used as a means to an end, where the restrained partner is more accessible to other sadomasochistic behaviour. However, bondage can also be used for its own sake. The restrained partner can derive sensual pleasure from the feeling of helplessness and immobility, and the active partner can derive visual pleasure and satisfaction from seeing their partner tied up.[2]

The description above shows that “bondage” can be expressed in many different ways. We see that bondage does not necessarily include the use of force by only one of the participants of the sex act. But both can experience satisfaction. The elders want to find out whether the person has seen films illustrating bondage and they ask:  “Have you seen films where one of the sex partners was bound or handcuffed?” The brother answers: “Yes, I have seen some films where the woman was bound to the bed with a rope.” “Did the man force the woman to be bound?” No, in most of them, the woman stretched out her hands to be bound.” Is the brother guilty of viewing “bondage” in the sense of abhorrent pornography stipulated by the Governing Body?  This could be a very difficult question for the elders to answer.

The next concept is the brutalizing of women. This concept is vague and it may be difficult for the elders in a judicial committee to determine if a brother is guilty of viewing this kind of pornography. A search on the Internet gave only one discussion of the issue:

According to a 2010 study  that analyzed 304 scenes from best-selling pornography videos, almost 90% of scenes contained physical aggression, while nearly 50% contained verbal aggression, primarily in the form of name-calling. Targets of these displays of aggression were overwhelmingly women and either showed pleasure or neutrality in response to the aggression. Some studies have shown that nearly 90% of pornography depicts violence while other studies have placed the prevalence at only 2%  One of the most disturbing facts about the prevalence of violence in porn is that nobody can agree on what they consider to be violent content.  What can be proven rather definitively is the association between pornography use in general and violence against women.[3]

The question is, what is meant by the word “brutalizing.” The quotation mentions physical aggression and verbal aggression, which may be close to the word “brutalizing.” But we also learn that the women “either showed pleasure or neutrality in response to the aggression.” So, if many women showed pleasure in connection with the aggression, the aggression must have been a part of the sexual play. The fact that some studies have found violence in 90% of pornographic films while others have found a prevalence of only 2%, shows that the definition of “brutalizing of women” is ambiguous and difficult to pin down. So, it follows that it will be difficult for the elders to determine if a brother has actually seen pornographic films showing the “brutalizing of women.”

I will now discuss group sex.  One definition is: “sexual activity involving three or more people.” Viewing group sex was not a disfellowshipping offense in 2006, but it became such an offense in 2012. The definition is clear-cut. But there may be several grey areas. For example, if a brother views a pornographic film with two participants, and then one or more scenes with three participants are also shown, must he quit watching the film at that point so as not be guilty of viewing “group sex?” If this happens several times, must he quit watching the films each time so as not to exceed the arbitrary tipping-point for getting disfellowshipped?

Now we come to child pornography. In the USA, there are laws against child pornography:

Child pornography is a form of child sexual exploitation. Federal law defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (persons less than 18 years old).  Images of child pornography are also referred to as child sexual abuse images.[4]

The basic definition of child pornography is clear-cut. But as the quotation below show, the practical application of the definition may not be so clear.

Most professionals and lay people would probably argue that they know what child pornography is. While it is a relatively easy concept to define when one refers to the “typical” forms (e.g. a photograph of a pre-pubescent child engaged in a sexual act), it becomes less easy to define when the image is less graphic (e.g. a photograph of a 16-year-old girl topless). This article considers the challenges that arise when drafting an adequate legal instrument to tackle child pornography. It considers at what age a person is “a child”, what types of material should be considered as pornography and what it is about material that makes it child pornography. The article concludes that child pornography is not an easy concept to define and that tension will always arise between the desire to criminalize exploitative material and personal freedoms such as expression and free speech.[5]

Child pornography existed long before computers and the Internet, but the Internet has become the most versatile medium for accessing illegal materials. The increasing number of individuals who create, possess, and distribute child pornography has raised concern regarding the use of the Internet by individuals who have a sexual interest in children. Currently, professionals face controversies regarding the definition and impact of child pornography. These issues are then affected by the nature of the actions depicted in child pornography, the different professional perspectives examined, and variation among international jurisdictions. This chapter focuses on legal and clinical issues in defining child pornography, while providing an overview of the breadth of the issue of online child sexual exploitation. Difficulties in creating an international legal definition of child pornography are discussed and comparisons are made on the intersection of legal and clinical significance of problematic pornographic materials.[6]

The basic definition of child pornography is “any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (persons less than 18 years old).” Suppose that there is a judicial case, and the elders ask the brother, “Have you viewed child pornography?,” and the brother answers No. “Have you viewed pictures of topless girls around 16 years old?” “I have seen several such pictures, but I do not know the ages of the girls. Do you brothers mean that such pictures represent forbidden child pornography?”  This is a good question because, according to the US definition, pictures of topless girls up to 17 years and 11 months could be “child pornography.” To be sure, if the pictures showed a boy and a girl together, naked or half naked, that would be child pornography. But if the two were 18 years old, to the day, it would not be child pornography.

My point with these examples is that it is not always easy to know what “child pornography” is, neither for the elders nor for a brother. In order to determine if the brother is guilty of viewing “child pornography,” the elders must make their own definition and then ask the brother several intimate questions based thereon. This is an ambiguous situation.

We now come to homosexual sex. The definition is clear: “Sex between persons of the same sex.” But again, there may be situations that are not so clear. For example, a brother views a film with a scene where a man and a woman have sex. Then the man disappears and another woman enters the room. The two women start kissing each other, and the brother looks at this for some time. Is he guilty of viewing homosexual pornography? What if the women are caressing each other’s breasts? Is this homosexual pornography?

Let us now consider bestiality. The definition is as follows: “Sexual relations between a human being and a lower animal… display or gratification of bestial   traits or impulses.”[7] Are both sides of this definition included in “bestiality” in “the abhorrent forms of pornography”? The quotation is from a lexicon, so at the outset we must think that both definitions are included. This can make it difficult to be certain that a person is guilty of viewing bestiality.

Several more questions could have been asked in connection with each of the nine cases of “abhorrent pornography.” But the questions that are asked illustrate that there are ambiguous and unclear sides to each one of them.

PROBLEMS IN CONNECTION WITH ABHORRENT PORNOGRAPHY AND JUDICIAL CASES

There are nine forms of abhorrent pornography that have been mentioned in the Watchtower literature. And each of these forms is more or less ambiguous. If the elders are informed that a person for some time has been viewing pornographic films, how should the judicial case proceed?

Problem 1: The elders have no biblical right to interrogate congregation members to find out if they have committed sins.

James 5:14-16 says that if a Christion is spiritually sick, “Let him call the elders of the congregation to him.” The elders will help the sick brother or sister to become well. No place in the Christian Greek Scriptures do we read that the elders have the right to ask a member of the congregation questions about whether he or she has violated God’s law, and they absolutely do not have the right to interrogate him or her. Thus, the proceedings of a judicial case are often conducted in a way that has no support in the Bible.

Problem 2: There is a need to ask a great number of questions in order to find out whether or not a Witness is guilty of having viewed abhorrent forms of pornography.

An easy but superficial way would be to mention all the nine forms of abhorrent pornography, and then ask whether the Witness has been viewing one or more of these. After the answer, more detailed questions about particular forms could be asked. I think that what really has happened will not be easy to ascertain by this method. More detailed questions about each abhorrent form may be necessary, including some definitions of what particular forms mean. In any case, a great number of questions must be asked, and the Bible does not authorize such questioning.

Problem 3: The elders have little knowledge of pornographic films and their specific content.

We must assume that most elders have no experience with the contents of pornographic films. The issue in a judicial case is not whether a Witness has seen pornographic films, but the question is the nature of what he or she has seen. If the elders do not have any experience with such films, it may be difficult for them to distinguish between pornography that the members of the Governing Body do not view as abhorrent and that which they consider abhorrent.  This problem is enhanced by all the ambiguous and grey areas that have been pointed out above.

Problem 4: The great role of the service department.

The service department at the branch office has been available for advice for several decades. During the 35 years when I was presiding overseer in the Majorstua congregation in Oslo until 2010, I remember that the body of elders four times sent a letter to the service department and asked for advice. We received good advice, and the answers stressed that the service department could only point to biblical principles. But it was the body of elders who knew the details of the situation that had to make the decision.

It is my experience that the Service department in recent years has been given a greater role than previously. This means that the service department plays a greater role in the decisions of the elders in the local congregation than was the case before 2010. So, when definitions of abhorrent pornographic films are necessary, a phone call is made by two elders to the service department. The problem is that the brothers of the service department do not know the details of the local situation, and therefore, their interferences may lead to unbiblical decisions.

AN ATTEMPT TO FIND SUPPORT FOR THE LAW OF PORNOGRAPHY IN THE BIBLE

Pornography was not known when the Bible was written and it is not mentioned in the Bible. The Governing Body distinguishes between “abhorrent forms of pornography” and other forms. And in order to find support for this distinction they refer to biblical scholars, as we see in the quotation from The Watchtower of March 15, 2012, page 31:

However, the apostle Paul said that some who sinned did not repent “over their uncleanness and fornication and loose conduct.” (2 Cor. 12:21) Regarding the Greek term there rendered “uncleanness,” Professor Marvin R. Vincent wrote that it has “the sense of impurity on the side of sordidness.” It is a sad fact that some pornography is much worse than scenes of nakedness or of a man and woman engaging in fornication. There is sordid, abhorrent pornography involving homosexuality (sex between those of the same gender), group sex, bestiality, child pornography, gang rape, the brutalizing of women, bondage, or sadistic torture. Some in Paul’s day who were “in darkness mentally” came to be “past all moral sense [and] gave themselves over to loose conduct to work uncleanness of every sort with greediness.”​— Eph. 4:18, 19.

Paul also mentioned “uncleanness” at Galatians 5:19.  A British scholar noted that it “may here [signify] more especially all unnatural lusts.” What Christian would deny that the above-mentioned abhorrent, sexually degrading forms of pornography are “unnatural lusts” and are sordid? Paul concluded at Galatians 5:19-21 that “those who practice” such uncleanness “will not inherit God’s kingdom.” Consequently, if someone developed an entrenched practice of viewing abhorrent, sexually degrading pornography, perhaps over a considerable period of time, and would not repent and turn around, he could not remain in the Christian congregation. He would have to be disfellowshipped in order to preserve the cleanness and spirit of the congregation.​— 1 Cor. 5:5, 11.

The red text shows that the biblical scholar M.R. Vincent defines the Greek word translated as “uncleanness” as “impurity on the side of sordidness” (Italics in the text). The word “sordidness” refers to something that is dirty or filthy, squalid or wretched.[1] That the Greek word akatharsia can have the mentioned references is of course correct. But the word can have many other references as well—a little unclean, quite unclean, or very unclean.

However, the green text shows that the author uses the adjective “sordid” together with the adjective “abhorrent” with reference to pornography. This is a  logical fallacy that we sometimes see in the Watchtower literature. One expression used by a scholar is taken as a fact, and this “fact” is then used to prove a particular argument. This way of arguing is misleading because the author does not tell the reader that there are many alternative meanings of the word than the one used by the author.

The author of the Watchtower article now takes a new step, as the red text shows. A British scholar who is not named, has written that “uncleanness” in Galatians 5:19 signifies “especially all unnatural lusts.” The same technique is used because the words of the scholar are taken as a fact and are used in the argument. The author argues, as seen in the red text, that no Christian would deny that the abhorrent forms of pornography mentioned in the green text are “‘unnatural lusts’ and are sordid.” The conclusion of this argument is that the abhorrent forms of pornography already mentioned are included in the word “uncleanness” in Galatians 5:19. Again the readers are misled.

Then the next step is taken. The author says, according to the blue text, “that ‘those who practice’ such uncleanness ‘will not inherit God’s kingdom’.” The expression “such uncleanness” must refer to the abhorrent forms of pornography. The author now uses the adverbial “consequently.” Because “uncleanness” in Galatians 5:9 includes “unnatural lusts,” abhorrent forms of pornography are unnatural lusts and are therefore included in “uncleanness” in Galatians 6:9, and because those who practice the mentioned “uncleanness” will not inherit God’s kingdom, such persons must be disfellowshipped.

All the steps taken in order to prove from the Christian Greek Scriptures that those who view abhorrent forms of pornography must be disfellowshipped are deceptive. In addition, the words “will not inherit the kingdom of God” do not refer to disfellowshipping. For example, persons will not be disfellowshipped for hostility, strife, jealousy, or fits of anger. These works of the flesh are bad, and Paul’s meaning evidently is that if a Christian does not work hard to quit the works of the flesh, he or she will not inherit the Kingdom of God. But each Christian will get time to work with his or her weaknesses. The point is that if “uncleanness” is a disfellowshipping offense according to Galatians 5:9, then all the other works of the flesh, including the four mentioned works of the flesh, must also be disfellowshipping offenses. But the members of the Governing Body do not claim that.[2]

[1]. https://www.thefreedictionary.com/sordidness.

[2]. My book My Beloved Religion — And The Governing Body,third edition, pages 236-242,  has detailed discussions of the word “uncleanness,” showing that uncleanness is not a disfellowshipping offense.

CONCLUSION

Pornography is not mentioned in the Bible, and the law that persons who view what is called “abhorrent forms of pornography” will be disfellowshipped is a human commandment. The nine “abhorrent forms” are made up and invented by the Governing Body, and the fact that which forms should be included has changed underlines the arbitrary nature of the law invented by the Governing Body.

Seven of the nine forms are ambiguous, and because we assume that the elders have no experience with each of the nine forms, there is a question of whether the elders in the judicial committees can make just judgments. The law about pornography is one of the clearest examples of the dictatorial rulership of the Governing Body. Every side of this law is invented by the Governing Body and it is impossible to claim that this law is based on the Bible.