Lily
Doctor Jane
Lotus
Joseph
chanson
Samson
Tom Sawyer
MoJoAuthors
Who are we?
Lily
Just your average, everyday, run-of-the-mill Mormon housewife. I like walking barefoot on the beach at sunset and getting my back scratched by my DH.
Joseph
My hobbies include storytelling, glass looking, banking, prophesying, playing with flaming swords, and hooking up with pretty women. My best line: “Happiness is the object and design of our existence; and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it.”
Doctor Jane
Doctor Jane is a scientifically-oriented liberal Mormon who enjoys contemplating the intricacies of human biology and medicine.
Doctor Jane lives with her spouse and several mammalian pets.
Samson
Samson is a hirsute Hercules* from the Old Testament. Like, duh.
* i.e., a strong, hairy dude.
Chanson
Mild-mannered mom and self-styled sexologist, C. L. Hanson is the author of Exmormon, a collection of intertwined novellas about young people, relationships, and Mormonism.
June 17, 2008 at 5:58 am
While I’m not active in the LDS church, nor do I believe it’s God’s church, I still follow it’s moral code and believe the fundamentals of that code are quite admirable.
When I came across this web site, I was filled with hope that I’d found a place where sexuality could be discussed in an open way, but from the Mormon/restrained perspective. Unfortunately, it’s become clear that isn’t the case. Instead, it’s turning into an anti-Mormon screed that is, frankly, disgusting. It’s one thing for someone to admit they made mistakes and explain how they handled those situation and another to not only celebrate their immorality, but to advocate it.
I may check in in the future, but for now it’s best to say goodbye.
June 17, 2008 at 5:03 pm
That’s too bad, Jason.
I’ll admit that I am at a loss re your bold statement that this blog is turning into an “anti-Mormon screed.”
And I’m also confused re your definition of “immorality.” It seems that your definition of immorality is all that counts. The church’s definition is flawed (i.e. masturbation should be okay, etc.), and so is everyone else’s definition, if it doesn’t line up lock step with your definition.
I’ve enjoyed your contributions to this blog, and hope you will continue, but wonder about your defensiveness? Why such vitriol? Your arguments are valid and interesting, but they are severely weakened when you fall back on hyperbole and name-calling.
June 18, 2008 at 2:13 am
Jason was offended by me on another thread for reasons I don’t understand, and I’m guessing Jason thinks I’m a blogger here when I’m just a commenter like him. In any case Jason, I’m certainly not anti-mormon, just honest that JS and BY held much looser sexual mores than LDS leaders today do, and that is not church bashing. Moreover, while I’ve mentally moved beyond mormonism pending reforms that likely won’t happen in my lifetime, I remain active for now. For the record, if it was my prior serial fornication that bugged you out, it was decades ago. I’m now long married with five kids, two now grown (not counting my grown love child).
June 18, 2008 at 6:23 pm
I stated several times that there is a core to sexual morality that is beyond dispute within the LDS context. That is, any sexual relations not between a husband and wife are morally wrong–a sin. Sexual relations are sexually stimulating another’s genitals or, if that other is a woman, her breasts. (To say sexual relations are something else is, as I said, being deliberately ignorant and an ass since NOBODY actually believes that.)
The discussion here is Celebrating Mormon Sexuality. That requires a respect of what it means to be Mormon, whether you follow the faith or not. The core law of chastity is very central to Mormon theology. Without it, you simply no longer have Mormonism. (If Lutherans start believing in salvation by works, they would simply no longer be Lutherans.)
Discussing why violating the core law of chastity is sin is a genuinely valid discussion. Advocating that it be discarded entirely turns the discussion anti-Mormon by definition.
The repeated and apparently deliberate failure to understand this (as evidenced even by the Tom’s posting above), caused me to lose my temper. It became simply absurd when Steve just started making stuff up. If I want to read that kind of disrespectful nonsense, I can just visit one of several anti-Mormon sites. I don’t for the same reason I won’t attend any ex-Mormon functions–the only interest appears to be that of tearing down Mormonism and mocking what makes it what it is (the “discussions” and “debates” are all too often simply straw men so someone can make some idiotic point.)
To make it abundantly clear; I think Joseph Smith used his position of power to sleep with as many post-pubescent teens as possible. Brigham Young said a lot of things; for every quote portending to show looser sexual mores, I can find several others showing the opposite. Regardless, the moral code was still quite strict at the center. That doesn’t mean mercy wasn’ shown as it is today, but what Steven, especially, has been advocating wasn’t remotely reflective of the culture at that time nor this.
June 18, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Jason, you are a fascinating guy, and I don’t mean that facetiously.
While this is not my blog, I would not consider discussion of fornication and even adultery “anti-Mormon.” Nobody is disagreeing with you that the “core” of Mormon, or even Christian morality forbids fornication and adultery. But why is discussion of such topics off limits? For a healthy discussion, I’d expect to have advocates from both sides of the discussion.
You could also argue that a core of Mormon Doctrine is an anthropomorphic God, a being distinct from Jesus Christ and the HG. And yet that fact doesn’t mean that other points of view are not discussed in Gospel Doctrine, even if they are not accepted.
But the “anti-Mormon” accusations have to stop. Most Mormons I know would consider your comment — “I think Joseph Smith used his position of power to sleep with as many post-pubescent teens as possible” — “anti-Mormon.” I don’t. To me, “anti-Mormon” is an ugly form of ridicule and bashing meant to hurt or insult or proselytize-away-from. I simply see both you and Steve EM expressing opinions about history, even if you disagree.
June 18, 2008 at 10:32 pm
[...] Tom Sawyer on AuthorsJason on AuthorsTom Sawyer on Christian online sex shopSteve EM on AuthorsLily on Christian [...]
June 18, 2008 at 11:13 pm
“I think Joseph Smith used his position of power to sleep with as many post-pubescent teens as possible”
While I’m hardly orthodox LDS, that rocks at the core of Mormonism and is anti-mormon. How else could it be interpreted? If JS was a horny fraud, then Mormonism is a fraud. And the person who promotes that view is anti-mormon.
Jason, nothing I said came close to being anti-mormon. I just speak my G-d given mind regarding reforms I believe are needed in the LDS church. Since you’re obviuosly unorthodox, why do you have so little tolerance for other points of view?
June 18, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Wow.