DiscussMormonism.com

They've made quite a splash venting their sexual opinions over at Daniel's blog.

Kyler Rasmussen wrote:As someone whose professional life involves delving into the personal stories associated with homelessness and family violence, it may or may not be ironic how often I end up thinking to myself: "thank heaven for the gift of the law of chastity".

Kiwi wrote:Timely and wise counsel, desperately needed in an age that has gone beyond permissive to prescriptive of promiscuity.

The last danite wrote:There is literally nothing wrong with polygamy.

If the sexual abuse of children was really a moral outrage to you rather than another cudgel against faith you would be a harsh critic of public schooling.

Abortion advocates do everything in their power to dehumanize the unborn in order to justify their slaughter.

Chris wrote:I'm deeply bothered by the paradigm shift on this topic that has happened through change in language.

Sex is abbreviated from sexual reproduction.

Think about how we've divorced the shortened word and why. It's because we, as a society, love pleasure more than children. Our own flesh and blood. The incarnation of ourselves. We love and hate ourselves. "Sex" reveals the pathology of man.

Sexual reproduction points us to our eternal potential with the term procreation.

God loves his children more than himself. He showed that through unbearable suffering. He is the creator.

Gods ultimate gift is eternal increase. Not just immorality. Sex pathologizes this gift. Procreation exalts it.

Wavesfromthefuture wrote:I’m a millennial and this post resonated with me. I’ve been amazed to see those that have totally disregarded the law of chastity and the results that eventually occur. I’ve seen the great despair and unhappiness of those that are promiscuous (universally). One of the great pitfalls for Millennials and Gen Z is the belief that they know better than previous generations. As they reject traditional views of morality, is it any wonder they feel aimless, hopeless, and happen to be the most unhappy generations? Are that many completely oblivious to the many studies (by non-LDS scholars and often secular) that show the benefits of living a chaste life vs. hedonism?

I begin to lose hope. I fear the worst may still be ahead of us--and the primary reason for my fears has to do with humanity's disregard for the church's foundational teachings regarding marriage and family and everything that they imply vis-a-vis the appropriate boundaries of sexual activity.

Sam wrote:Typically, those that think that sex is just recreation and solely for pleasure, also feel that the unwanted fetus is just a parasite to be gotten rid of.

When boundaries are set to define human life (one is human only when one is wanted, and only if one has a heart beat, and only if one is developing normally, and ....), then boundaries can be set to destroy human life. And that is my fear and my sorrow.

Boomers (I be one) are already considered "obsolete." When will the day come that adds additional exclusionary boundaries to what it means to be human?

Clearly sex functions as a very effective scapegoat in Mormonism. If not the sole cause of society's ills, certainly one of the top.

They are brainwashed into imagining all sorts of things like this in order for The Corporation of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints can continue its control over them. Sex, money, and food, controlling those, all else is a cake walk... They are vastly more Victorian than Victorians ever could possibly have imagined.

Omg. I’ve been out for too long. That’s how Mormons talk now? Some of those comments are sickening.

Commenters on their way to church:



- Doc

Satan sex is pretty fun though. Having a threesome with Satan beats the heck out of having one with Jesus.

Dr Exiled wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 13, 2021 8:51 pm

Satan sex is pretty fun though. Having a threesome with Satan beats the heck out of having one with Jesus.

I always felt Jesus was a little too selfish in bed. It’s always about Him.

- Doc

Yeah, wow: I've been meaning to comment on this. If you've read the Mopologists for any length of time, you're accustomed to seeing them say stupid things, but sometimes they go so far off the deep end that it's hard to believe. For starters, the poster Chewbarker makes a valid point:

Chewbarker wrote:I would imagine that the sexual mores of our early Mormon leaders would have also been highly objectionable to our modern sensibilities.

Fascinating to ponder.

Which earns him a censorship threat from the blog's proprietor:

DCP wrote:Debatable. But, beyond dispute, irrelevant to the point of my post.

Strike one.

And drum dude already quoted this, but it's worth noting again:

Sam LeFevre wrote:Typically, those that think that sex is just recreation and solely for pleasure, also feel that the unwanted fetus is just a parasite to be gotten rid of.

Fred Kratz objects:

Kratz wrote:I'd love to read the study that confirms your first sentence.

To which DCP replies:

Dan Peterson wrote:You seriously doubt that, FK?

And:

Dan Peterson wrote:I think it intuitively less likely that people who view non-marital sex as merely a recreational activity -- as opposed to those who, whatever their actual practice may be, tend to revere marriage and married sexuality as more or less sacred -- will see abortion as a serious matter.

Prove me wrong.

Fred Kratz wrote:So, given that, are you ok with the blanket "parasite" comment?

Daniel Peterson wrote:If you prefer inconvenience or nuisance or something along those lines, you're certainly free to substitute another such word of similar import.

I think it undeniable that many recreational fornicators and adulterers view conception more or less in that fashion.

If you have evidence to prove me wrong, please produce The Study.

My goodness...."recreational fornicators"? "adulterers"? Where is he getting the notion that having sex outside of marriage automatically means that these folks hate procreation and having babies? Lots and lots of people have conceived out of wedlock, after all, and I can't help but wonder: Who counts as a "recreational fornicator" in his book? Normal people, who aren't married, but who have relationships and happen to have sex, despite not getting married? Are these the alleged "fetus-haters"?

This sounds to me like one of those cases where the Mopologists are angry that others are getting to enjoy the fruits of life in a way that they never will. One of the greatest threads of all time was started by Dean Robbers several years back, and it dealt with a similar theme: Dr. Robbers observed that the Mopologists' tastes are limited by the dictates of the Brethren, and thus, they--the Mopologists--will never understand the pleasures of, e.g., a "modestly priced Bordeaux" paired with a perfectly grilled rack of lamb. Or single-origin coffee, or a hand-rolled Cuban cigar, etc.

But the same can apply to sex as well. If Dr. Peterson, Midgley, Gee and the rest have been 100% observant Latter-day Saints for their whole lives, then that means they were virgins when they got married, and that they've only ever had sex with one partner. And there is a whole laundry list of additional things that they've likely never done, or that they don't really know anything about, including:

--Masturbation. Presumably they've never done it, don't know how to do it, and don't know what it feels like.
--Oral Sex. Again, this was kiboshed by the Brethren years ago. Sure, the prohibition was later "lifted," but do you think these guys are taking any chances?
--Anal sex. In their universe, this is something that only homosexuals do.
--Pornography, including "soft-core" material, such as Playboy. Instead, the Mopologists apparently have to derive their titillation from things like "J. Lo Pitbull Get a Boner Hot Booty Shaking" videos on Facebook.
--They likely don't know what women's breasts look like, apart from their own wives', and or, perhaps tribal women in (e.g.)National Geographic, or scenes from R-rated movies, etc. In fact, it's unlikely that they've seen *any* naked bodies in frankly sexual situations. The idea of such a thing is likely totally foreign to them: they don't know anything about it.
--I recall that Dr. Peterson once said that, while he was a bishop overseeing a singles ward, he asked some of his college-aged parishioners if they knew about "coitus interrupts," which struck me as a bit "forward" and gross on his part, but then again, you have to wonder how he heard about the concept in the first place.

Basically, for the Mopologists to claim that they know anything at all about sex is like a person who's only read one book to claim that they know about literature. This really ranks among the more embarrassing things that the Mopologists have done in recent memory.

All of that to say, Good Dr. Scratch, that I feel very sorry for the poor women in their lives....

drumdude wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 13, 2021 9:56 pm

All of that to say, Good Dr. Scratch, that I feel very sorry for the poor women in their lives....

Me too. Seriously.

Just imagine if there was peer review for the Mopologists' understanding on this topic.....