Two quick facts:

1.  I live in Utah

2.  I know *lots* of people who smoke.

#1 and #2 considered together may surprise some, considering Utah's reputation, but it's true:  Utah has lots of smokers.  I see them every day: at work, outside of stores, and on the road.  I don't know how statistically Utah ranks in smokers per capita, but by my unscientific count, Utah is nowhere near the bottom.

What Utah is certainly #1 in (again, in my unscientific, unsubstantiated opinion), is anti-smoking ads per capita.  Everywhere you look, there are billboards and TV commercials all of which in very direct and plain language proclaim smoking to be unhealthy, destructive, and downright evil, and that you (the viewer) need to QUIT SMOKING NOW!!!!

Now, I drive the same roads and see the same TV broadcasts as those Utah smokers, so I *know* that they see those anti-smoking messages just as I do.   Which leads one to wonder:  do anti-smoking messages have the desired effect?  Certainly there are lots of people who are exposed to constant suggestions that smoking is bad...yet smoke anyway.  (Yes, part of this is due to smoking being addictive, but is not the only reason).

There is clearly a point of diminishing returns where increased exposure does not produce increased results, and one wonders if, in Utah in particular, the anti-smoking campaign has already passed it.   Say someone who currently smokes happens to see five anti-smoking messages per day in Utah; if you spent more money and exposed them to TEN anti-smoking messages per day now, would they then be twice as likely to quit?  I think not.

It's likely, in fact, that doubling or tripling the current number of anti-smoking ads would probably not have any impact on the number of smokers, because (one would think) IF a smoker was one to be influenced and encouraged to quit by anti-smoking ads, wouldn't the present quantity be enough to do so already?

This principle came to mind as I listened to the Priesthood/Relief Society lesson this last week from the Spencer W. Kimball manual about Chastity.

If you've been in the Church for any length of time, you've heard talks, lessons, and messages about chastity.  Probably many, many talks, lessons and messages about chastity, particularly if you're under 25 and/or single.

Have chastity lessons passed the point of diminishing returns?  If the number of talks and lessons on chastity were doubled, would the number of chastity problems in the church decrease?  If they were reduced by half, would chastity problems increase?  Or would they be about the same either way?

Please note, I'm not minimizing the seriousness of the Law of Chastity, nor criticizing Pres. Kimball's own words on the matter.  Sexual sin is one of the most pressing problems in society and in the Church today--it's arguable that actions related to chastity (in terms of teen pregnancies, broken families due to adultery, etc) are a greater factor in families living in poverty today than violence.  But how do you tackle the problem?

Most smokers know smoking is bad--they don't need a billboard to tell them.  Likewise, Church members who fall into chastity-related temptations have probably already heard a lesson or two (or seven) on chastity before.  Would one or two more chastity talks have made a difference to them in avoiding sin?  Or, like smokers, do they pretty much already know it's bad...but end up doing it anyway?  If so, what can you do?

One of the most absurd things I ever witnessed was on my mission.  It was the second week of the month and I had just been transferred to a new ward.  The talks in sacrament meeting that week were on tithing.  When we returned to church the following Sunday, all the talks in sacrament meeting were also on tithing.  The next week, all the sacrament talks were STILL on tithing.  Then we got a break for fast and testimony meeting.  Then, amazingly, we attended sacrament meeting and discovered that the sacrament talks were on...tithing, and continued to be on tithing for the next THREE weeks.  (I have the sneaking suspicion that (1) tithing was a problem in that ward, and that (2) the bishop was asking all the active members who were NOT full tithe payers to give the talks...)

Did it work?  I have no idea.  Perhaps those members giving the talks got a 'kick in the butt', but do you think there were members who would have started paying tithing faithfully after six weeks of tithing talks that wouldn't have after only, say, four?  Doubtful... 

One of my co-workers is a former smoker, who said in the end it was his family who encouraged him to quit--not some random billboard put up by a faceless organization with an unknown agenda.   This suggests it's partly the messenger not just the message that makes the difference between hearing and listening.  The more one respects Pres. Kimball's authority and position as prophet, and/or understands his concern and care for Church members' well-being, the more one has the potential to take the message seriously to heart, even if it is not fundamentally different than the other eight talks on chastity you may have heard in the last year.  (And by the same token, lessons--for or against--chastity learned in the home from family are probably far more influential than firesides from strangers you've never met.)

Still, it's interesting to note that just saying something twice as often--or twice as loudly--does not make someone twice as likely to listen...