We think it is merciful to let men engage in pornography with only limited lost of blessings, and with no threat of losing their membership, despite what the scripture plainly lays out.
Then some girl in the church marries a man in the temple and finds that he has been partaking of pornography for years, that he is, not surprisingly, addicted again two months after the wedding, and that he isn't even aroused by her a short time after the marriage.
And we call ourselves merciful for doing it.
God knows best. He lays the case out plainly in D&C 63. He lists out the things that are among his members at that time. With no lack of foresight into the future, he includes those who look on a woman to lust after her among them. He then says that his church is not justified because these things are among them. Later, continuing this message, so they cannot misunderstand the seriousness of the matter, he states the two possibilities that lay before them at that juncture in time.
D&C 63:63 Wherefore, let the church repent of their sins, and I, the Lord, will own them; otherwise they shall be cut off.
When the God of heaven says to his church that it is not justified and threatens to cut it off we had best pay strict heed. His message was plain enough. These are things that you need to get rid of one way or another. There are only two ways to do that. One is for the person to repent. The other is to cast them out. Those are the only two ways it can be done.
It is exactly the same counsel given to Alma. The transgressor who would not repent had to be cast out.
Except that D&C 63 fills that counsel in with a list of particulars. And looking on a woman to lust after her is one of them. Whatever that meant in 1831 is a tiny, miniscule fraction of what those who watch pornography are looking at now.
We must have enough pity on our daughters to stand by God's word. It will be more merciful to the men if we do.
But most particularly, we prove cruel without measure to our daughters when we don't.