Feel free to continue visiting this blog for a laugh, or simply to grace us with your superior European “intellect, maturity,” and notions of “acceptance.”

Though one might question your claims when you reduce this blog to the following not-very-intelligent, immature, and non-accepting sentance:

“‘hi we’re mormons, and beyond being mormon we are also sexual addicts, and need to spend all our time focusing on sex.’”

It’s “hi we’re mormons, and beyond being mormon we are also sexual addicts, and need to spend all our time focusing on sex.”

Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t care personally. I’m a Christian of the born again flavour, but I don’t sound, walk, or talk like those bible thumpers, and in truth most of them don’t like me very much…

you see i read, I study, I do research, I am an addict for history and archeology and I am the guy that raises my hand in church and says, “but um, this verse and that verse say this and that, and how is it you can say that when (after listing about 100 verses to which they turn out to be liars) all prove what your saying isn’t correct?”

which I then follow with (after the “rebuke”) that God didn’t have a problem having Abram question Him before He destroyed sodom and gomorrah, so if God has no problem with a man testing him, I have no problem testing you as a man, when I’m a man, and neither of us are God.

However, beyond that little self expletive diatribe, I am amused that the pursuit of overt sexuality and the integration of mormonism is even possible.

I’ll keep coming back and see what random stuff you come up with, and I’m sure it will bring a smile to my day just as randomly.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.