Mormons and Sex

[RubinHighlander]

Did anyone catch this Radio West podcast last week?
http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/mormons-and-sex

I thought it was really good to get this topic out in the open. It really brought to light the mixed messages, unclear boundaries and unhealthy practices of the LDS Church, from the local leader roulette all the way up to HQ. It was interesting the see how the COB quietly removes things from the shelves, like the Little Factory pamphlet, or 'masturbation' from the Especially 4 Youth docs, but never let's anyone know about it or provides more guidance to bishops. There was a former bishop from BYU on there that revealed just how little direction they get from the COB.

Another interesting topic was how women are so much more in the dark than men on sexuality other than getting indoctrinated with be super pure and nonsexual until your wedding night, then they are expected to jump in the car and now how to drive 100mph down the freeway in traffic.

These bad practices and policies are contrary to the unique Mormon view of sex in the eternities.

I missed the last 10 minutes of this podcast, but hope to catch the rest after work today.

[Korihor]

I'll give it a listen

[Red Ryder]

These bad practices and policies are contrary to the unique Mormon view of sex in the eternities.

Jennifer Finlayson Fife agrees with this and makes a healthy argument that mormon doctrine is actually sex positive.

I'm still on a self imposed mormon themed podcast ban for mental health reasons but I might need to make an exception for this one.

Sex podcasts are not on the ban list.

[Linked]

Thanks for the suggestion, I gave it a listen. It was good. One of the callers must have had the same primary modesty lesson I had, her 8 year old daughter asked her for a sweater to cover her shoulders so she wouldn't be "distracting". The mother was not happy.

These bad practices and policies are contrary to the unique Mormon view of sex in the eternities.

Jennifer Finlayson Fife agrees with this and makes a healthy argument that mormon doctrine is actually sex positive.

She was actually one of the guests on the show.

[Rob4Hope]

This is a brain dump on this. I'm not gunna edit it. Sorry for the typoes and grammar problems....
--------------------------------------------


I listened to the pod-cast and disagree with a lot of the assumed position of the participants. I also offer a blow-by-blow summary I took as I listened because I get more when I take notes.

Kristen Hodson, Jennifer Finalayson-fife, and Chris Duce were the participants. The position they all assumed was that the LDS has a pro-sexual theology with current doctrines. I heard things that negated that position through the cast, but saw these 3 folks as working under the covers (ha..no pun intended) to change the LDS paradigm and position from the inside.

Finlayson-fife said something at the end: She said we have a balance of personal revelation to make our own choices, to decide what is the "spirit of this law". She told of a client in his 30s she had, who still lives in his parents basement. 99% perfection FSOY. His development was stunted. He never even went to a PG movie lest he thought about sex. His ability to be in a relationship was destroyed. He was so concerned about LOC he was paralyzed. Yet he was perfect in things... Finalyson-fife ended by saying laws are there to facilitate development,...but that should not be a false safety...


I disagree with these folks on the positive-theology position. The church has published things which are damaging. For example, the last authoritative (as in it was delivered by The Prophet) statements about sex I am aware of were SWK about sex being "controlled". And, there has never been official retraction of the LDS position on contraception, and the only "acceptable" choice for not having children being "complete abstinence". The handbook of instructions has different information, but still has the section on vasectomy needing bishop's council. And, the position on "oral sex" that was published NEVER was officially removed.

The church takes a position of changing policy by "silence". Oh, they just wont talk about it any more. But, they still publish or allow to be available post discourses and things where clear and damaging things were said. Yet, with the policy of not "disavowing" things with VERY rare exceptions, that crap still rattles around.

How can a church be pro-sexuality when they have a mixture of non-disavowed material coursing through their history, their books, their discourses, their teachings, their admonitions, their very roots and theology?

Here is a blow-by-blow...

• Found a lot of interesting information about different things I had NO IDEA existed. Floating?....Gazing?... They admitted right at the beginning that "we are horny people"...and its important to us.
• Reference to the 'M' word being taken out of the "For the Strength of Youth" manual,...with no explanation. People were left to speculate about it.
• Finalyson-Fife explained that traditional Christian orthodoxy had the idea of flesh being evil: sexuality "is a necessary evil". She was a proponent of LDS sexuality being "implicit[ly]" good. She didn't back this with any quotes, so this is her opinion.
• She said "indulgent" and "repressed", the extremes, were both bad and have negative impact.
• God has a wife, and they are having sex? Finlayson-fife went through it...but said sex has spiritual capacity that "allows us to forge deep intimacy." She said this was the "most spiritual experience human beings report." I am aware of JRH "Souls, Symbols and Sacraments" where he would agree--sex believe it or not folks, according to Holland, is the most sacred thing there is--EVEN more sacred than the temple. (asm me about this sometime--I can justify it) Finlayson-fife takes this positive position, but I don't know where she gets it; reading SWK, HBL, JFS and Boyd Packer don't give me this warm fuzzy...
• Hodson: "God's capacity for orgasm"....? The announcer basically said: "These are ideals people should be linking to the theology..."
• I want to know where they get their info. They are making it up....and saying it is in the theology?...nada...
• Chris. Are high-minded ideas filtering down? First of all, this Chris guy makes it clear that things like "Heavenly Mother" is whispered at church. These idea, if they really exist about positive sex, are NOT clearly communicated at all. Heavenly Mother is extremely controversial. The amount of info is limited at best.... Saying HM is having an orgasm is NEVER (and will never IMHO) be talked about. etc.....
• Chris thinks the idea of "pleasure" being ok and filtering down from above is non-existent. This I AGREE with...the church does NOT enthrown pleasure as being good from high up... Finlayson-fife agrees. These things have not come down. Male led culture puts women's pleasure off the table. Women are primadona, not sexual--and those two things are in opposition.
• Finlayson-fife indicates many LDS women works see sex as bad, and don't want to have anything to do with it. This does come through the "false traditions" that comes through.
• ...OK...here is a nugget. Finlayson-fife says that we (meaning LDS) have borrowed "fear based attempts" from other cultures in an attempt to protect our own--and those artifacts have grown to be "accepted as the gospel". They have no doctrinal backing--yet the general membership believes they are doctrinal sound.
• ...FF keeps saying things don't speak to our core theology. I have yet to hear any "core theology". This pod-cast is progressing on the assumption that the LDS leadership is pro-sex.
• Marion G. Romney--better dead clean than alive unclean. Now the theology....is this crap from the past or still that way?
• Hodson. These old idea keep getting passed on. "Better dead than be raped." OMG!...this idea is floating around. Our church doesn't fix the old messages at all. Little factory was finally taken out of print...but sure went long. "The old messages are still alive and well because we are not rescinding them."
• Chris. LGBT community. People ARE killing themselves..."so as to be NOT left with the choice of sin or be miserable the rest of their life." Gay guy in BYU felt he wasn't living the gospel because if he was, God would make him straight. This message still is hurting people as well.
• These people see the boundaries shifting. Low accountability on the leadership side on articulating a clear position, and low accountability on the side of the saints to discredit something an apostle or prophet said 50 years ago. These are non-existent. "What does it mean to live in accordance with the gospel around sexuality?" Finlayson-fife said "contradictory position around sexuality." It exists.....
• Steve (caller). Former BYU bishop. Masterbation issue challenge...."you can't go on mission unless 1 year free"....all the way down to nothing. As a bishop he had struggles with his own kids and young people in his ward. The SHAME hurt everyone. There is no dialogue around this: "How do we claim our sexuality in a healthy way?" Steve...it is unclear what the rule is around masterbation. Depends on the Stake President, or what someone read 50 years ago. Young people are condemning themselves, paralized because they have feelings.....
• Hodson: Still focused on boys. Girls are left out of this so far. Still all about boys,...but not girls?...OH,..she pulled that out. NICE catch Kristen!!! Even in this conversation with "informed" LDS people, still steering it away from the girls...
• Chris: Told about his pod-cast. People are anxious to talk about this. Lots of people want to open up and be heart--they share their story a lot. If there was another outlet to talk about this, anxiety about this would go down.
• Amy (caller). I was LDS and told that sex was bad and NEVER have it. NO NO NO...then when I got married GO GO GO. How to make this shift? She wrote a book on this and it goes out from OB doctors to many in Utah County. What about sex-education in the school?
• Hodson: Sex education. LDS legislatures,...it is controlled up there. Boundaries, consent, relationships, etc. Word "vagina" came up, and someone pushed a button and told everyone: "We need to calm the environment here." There is a lack of understanding about what sex education even means....
• Finlayson-fife. Wedding nights are NOT fun for LDS women. That transition is "challenging". Women are going to the bedroom ignorant...don't know what a clitoris even is. To "think of oneself as a sexual being" is missing. Men are told they are inherently sexual, but you can be taken down by it. There is an entitlement that comes and sometimes women get used. "If I am a good woman, I am inherently NOT a sexual woman." Their sexuality is constructed for "his" needs and wants. Many women have no connection to their own sexual self, or if there is even such a choice present.
• Finlayson-fife. The shaming of our sexuality is a spiritual hostile event. Pure vs. sexual. Put at variance.
• Hodson: There can be a grief process between loosing purity because I am now sexual. I don't know what I want (as a woman), and I get to mourn.
• Caller: Daughter needed to put a sweater over her bar shoulders. Modesty lesson in primary. Teacher took the material from approved LDS literature. It made her angry. She said that language in For the Strength of Youth, the language around modesty is directed primarily toward women. (don't know if that is true,...but she said it)
• Finlayson-fife. We sexualize our children. We also give them the idea they are in charge of others thoughts and feelings. Woman are taught they control. Their sexuality therefore becomes a threat.
• Chris: He would test boundaries, and see how far he could take it. Hodson: The girl then becomes responsible for how far things go... Chris: He didn't want to marry some women because some girls went tooo far. He regrets this happened.
• Hodson: What are the rules? People haven't developed their own authority. "We are the authority over our bodies and our lives..." People have to figure it out.
• Finlayson-fife: if you believe the LOC is right, that is important to you. Think for themselves around their choices. Church currently has a challenge now because of single adults. Its growing, and what are the implications out there? The LOC has high-stakes for that community.

[Red Ryder]

Great notes Rob!

I've listened to nearly all of JFF's podcasts and sort of understand her point of view. The best way to explain it is to call it an "uncomfortable threesome". The uncomfortable third party is her belief in the gospel/church.

As a sex therapist, she recognizes the need for healthy human sexuality. As a mormon sex therapist, she recognizes that the current Mormon culture is toxic. As a (nuanced?) believer, she is forced to stitch the two together and reconcile with threads of belief, which can only work by pimping the doctrine as sex positive.

Ironically it is, if you assume Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother(s) are doing the horizontal celestial lambada to procreate large populations of spiritual children. You also need to toss in polygamy, flaming swords, and all other kinky characteristics of a 19th century frontier sex cult to round out the doctrine. Most importantly, if humans are created in God's image, then that doctrine would assume that Heavenly Mother has a clitoris which is 100% for her pleasurable benefit.

I don't 100% agree that Mormon doctrine is sex positive considering all of the toxic doo doo that comes out of the mouth of prophets past and present. However, I do fully appreciate her efforts to change the sex shaming culture of Mormonism and understand it's difficult to do from inside the church, and absolutely impossible to do from outside.

If mormon men and women would just use their brains and make decisions regarding sex for themselves, the culture would change. But the problem is, too many members rely on old white guys to govern every aspect of their lives including sex; how it's done, with whom, when, why, and what's appropriate to wear, when to get dressed after. For Gawd's sake is it really a sin to sleep naked next to your spouse?? Of course it is; because you're instructed to wear the sex prevention suit both day and night!!!!!!!!!

[moksha]

Random thoughts on this topic:

1. Some non-Mormons have observed that by the Church making sex their only moral concern it has lead to a lack of Mormon business ethics.

2. It seems folly to insist that adult divorced and dating members observe the same rules of chastity that were originally designed to prevent unwed teenage mothers.

3. Sexual dysfunction can be a consequence of growing up with negative messages about sex.

4. Chapel Mormons who do have sex before marriage carry around a shopping cart full of guilt.

5. Mormon girls are reticent to pack condoms in their purse, putting the risk unsafe sex out of their minds to appear righteous.

[RubinHighlander]

...we have a balance of personal revelation to make our own choices, to decide what is the "spirit of this law".

Nice work digging into that one Rob! I will say I scoffed at that whole "personal revelation" comment, because I know from experience it doesn't really work because it's BS (from a supernatural metaphysical perspective) and it goes against the grain of the COB messages of "only if it falls in line with what your leaders tell you what to do."

I don't agree with all the view points of the mormon therapists, but at least the topic was openly discussed!

Bottom line: be the master of your domain!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkklW7VEBHA

[Rob4Hope]

Nice work digging into that one Rob! I will say I scoffed at that whole "personal revelation" comment, because I know from experience it doesn't really work because it's BS (from a supernatural metaphysical perspective) and it goes against the grain of the COB messages of "only if it falls in line with what your leaders tell you what to do."

Yeh, when she mentioned this, the talk given by Oaks blasted to the front of my mind. If we receive revelation, says Oaks, that is counter the what the brethren have told us, we can be pretty certain its not from God.

You are not allowed, according to "LDS Theology" to make your own decisions about these things. But, the problem is as the authors pointed out, the LDS cannon of talks is replete with contradictions!

ARGGGG

[Rob4Hope]

I've listened to nearly all of JFF's podcasts and sort of understand her point of view. The best way to explain it is to call it an "uncomfortable threesome". The uncomfortable third party is her belief in the gospel/church.

Many years ago I purchased Finalyson-Fife's dissertation. Was like $10 in PDF format or something. Anyway, I read it carefully, and multiple times. She is really trying, and I appreciated some of the things she found. She told a story, for example, of a woman who challenged what she was being told about sex for children ONLY with her Stake President. The SP sent to HQ trying to get some info, and was given back a response which he was told to read to her, but NOT allow her to take (I think I am repeating this accurately). The response was a bunch of quotes and crap (you know the kind) that tiptoed around the issues. The SP asked the lady if this was answering her concerns, to which she replied no.

This lady then asked the SP a very interesting question: say for example that I have something wrong with my tubes and it isn't possible for me to conceive and have children. Does that mean that the benefits of sex should be skipped between me and my husband because in my case it would only be about pleasure and our bonding?

I don't recall what the answer was,...but I remember FF bringing this VERY though provoking story out. Her dissertation had a lot of these nuggets of thought in it.

As a sex therapist, she recognizes the need for healthy human sexuality. As a mormon sex therapist, she recognizes that the current Mormon culture is toxic. As a (nuanced?) believer, she is forced to stitch the two together and reconcile with threads of belief, which can only work by pimping the doctrine as sex positive.

Agreed.

Ironically it is, if you assume Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother(s) are doing the horizontal celestial lambada to procreate large populations of spiritual children. You also need to toss in polygamy, flaming swords, and all other kinky characteristics of a 19th century frontier sex cult to round out the doctrine. Most importantly, if humans are created in God's image, then that doctrine would assume that Heavenly Mother has a clitoris which is 100% for her pleasurable benefit.

Dude!...HM having a clitoris and enjoying it?....

If you were to bring something like that up around TBM folks, you would possibly get hit across the mouth--and I'm NOT just making that up. According to Holland, SEX is so sacred, to personal, so holy and profound, that it is more sacred than the very temple. You see, the temple is made sacred by the marriage, and the marriage is made sacred by the sex. Go read "Souls, Symbols and Sacraments". He spells it out when you just link it up.

You have GAs who will NOT talk about their special witness because "some things are too sacred to talk about!". I happen to think this is a clever excuse to avert questioning because they want to preserve their "special-ness" by acting like they are so 'all that' with such statements. What a sham! But, this attitude swirls around sex as well,...ESPECIALLY with HEAVENLY PARENTS!

You wanna get socked in the chops!?......just ask if HM has any vibrator toys her and her husband enjoy using!....(GAWD,...i'm getting weird just writing this!)

I don't 100% agree that Mormon doctrine is sex positive considering all of the toxic doo doo that comes out of the mouth of prophets past and present. However, I do fully appreciate her efforts to change the sex shaming culture of Mormonism and understand it's difficult to do from inside the church, and absolutely impossible to do from outside.

I am 100% certain Mormon Doctrine is contaminated. Using "Mormon Doctrine" as an example, McConkie, under the title of "sex thoughts" has a footnote that says see sexual immorality. The implication being all sex thoughts are wrong and evil.

And, under the topic of "sex" (when I did a study several years ago) in the lds.org, all of the topics I found were about the "evils" associated with sex--not a single positive message.

I wrote a paper on this a while ago (and I put it on here). There is poison in the waters. Unless the church grapples and corrects its past doctrines with clearly rescinded statements or "disavows"....to this man who's testiomony has been blasted, there will never be any trust restored.

If mormon men and women would just use their brains and make decisions regarding sex for themselves, the culture would change. But the problem is, too many members rely on old white guys to govern every aspect of their lives including sex; how it's done, with whom, when, why, and what's appropriate to wear, when to get dressed after. For Gawd's sake is it really a sin to sleep naked next to your spouse?? Of course it is; because you're instructed to wear the sex prevention suit both day and night!!!!!!!!!

They can't use their brain and stay in the fold. We were programmed our whole lives to defer to authority. "Follow the prophet, HE KNOWS THE WAY!"

We need to stop sharing things with our leadership about personal sexual practices. The standards are so mixed it makes me angry. We have HF and HM apparently doing it...and we get attacked if we even mention such things. I mean, it really is a HOT TOPIC (in a hurtful mean way). Why then are we, as humans in the Image of God asked to share our personal lives with bishops and stake presidents?

Seems like a mixed standard to me!......

[Dravin]

The problem with claiming Mormon Doctrine is sex positive, or negative, or anything really, is you have to define what qualifies as Mormon Doctrine in the first place. Pinning down what exactly is Mormon Doctrine is like nailing Jello to a wall, not even President Newsroom is up to the job. If one wants to squirm away and claim the sex negative attitudes in the church aren't "doctrine" and therefore the doctrine is positive since the negative things that get taught (such as women being responsible for men's sexuality, masturbation being a sin, or purity lessons like licked cupcakes) aren't doctrine... I suppose one can, but to me, sitting on the outside, it looks an awful lot like a No True Scotsman Fallacy, "The doctrine is sex positive, those teachings that aren't sex positive aren't really doctrine."

[LaMachina]

Is it not fair to say that Theology and Doctrine are two different. if not mutually exclusive, categories? Perhaps it can broken down thusly:

Theology = Understanding of God
Doctrine = Teachings based on Understanding of God

I agree with the podcast guests that Mormon theology has at least the potential to be sex positive because, as RR mentions, our deities literally have physical bodies with all the associate fun bits. And mormon heaven is predicated on our ability to continue to use our fun bits into perpetuity.

It's an idea that has certainly offended many christians/monotheists and seems to have become increasingly offensive to certain mormons over time. I wonder if it's simply a pendulum reaction to the fact that our founding prophet was a Lothario or that mormons have long been viewed from the outside through the perverted lens of polygamy. Perhaps we have become so desperate to fit in that we've adopted a lot of the sex negative ideas associated with christianity?

Whatever the case, it is a scenario I've seen with other "doctrinal" ideas within other religions. Examples like the acceptance of homosexuals and changing views on hell have demonstrated doctrinal changes based on someone's evolving view of God.

But in mormonism's case it seems we are incapable of making anything better. Considering all the things mormonism has doggedly and disastrously held on to for far too long, it's a huge shame we did not develop a sex positive culture based on a theology that seems built for it. For all of Joseph's many, many faults, it appears he tried to fuse Christianity and sex in a way few have tried.

[Rob4Hope]

The problem with claiming Mormon Doctrine is sex positive, or negative, or anything really, is you have to define what qualifies as Mormon Doctrine in the first place. Pinning down what exactly is Mormon Doctrine is like nailing Jello to a wall, not even President Newsroom is up to the job.

EXACTLY!

Part of the problem is there are a lot of negative teachings out there, and few positive ones, around sex,...like the licked cupcake example. I've heard that one in the form of a lifesaver.

Anyway, from the podcast, the bishop who called in, and from other pod-casts like John Dehlin with Netasha Parker (who wrote on masterbation), you have bishops and SP pulling "doctrine" (whatever that means) from those things taught over the pulpit and still published. It creates a "leadership roulette" problem that is a total mess. What is the policy?....who knows. You are supposed to be "led by the Spirit".

What a disaster! Led by the Spirit?...a bishop or SP led by the Spirit with regards to another person's sexuality?....OMG!

I had a SP tell me to my face that Oral and Anal sex were both very wrong. I was unmarried at the time, getting ready for marriage, and completely celibate for my whole life. I was stunned! WOW...talk about reaching right into my future bedroom.....and I had another SP a week later say: "What you two decide to do is your business."

Which one was right?....they very much disagreed! Answer...they were BOTH RIGHT!...because BOTH TEACHINGS EXIST OUT THERE!

So, lets just be schizophrenic about LDS sex and slam things back and forth, freaking members out and getting into the bedroom of the saints. This is healthy...heck....we don't care about divorce. Oh no...we just care about "follow the prophet". If the DAMN PROPHET WOULD LEAD,...MAYBE I WOULD CONSIDER FOLLOWING!

[blazerb]

I just finished listening to the podcast. I'm pissed. Like others, I appreciate JFF's attempts to make the LDS church more sex positive and a healthier environment, but the response from the church has been so slow as to be non-existent, at least on human lifetime scales. Ok, the church got rid of "little factories" and the word "masturbation" in FTSOF. That does not stop our church leaders from taking the toxic messages they absorbed as youth, combining them with the toxic messages about sex addiction and homosexuality the church is selling today, and creating a toxic cocktail that threatens the mental well being and lives of the members. The church uses "liberal" members like JFF to tell the world that we are normal and caring. The toxicity is hidden behind excuses that local leaders just need to learn more or pay better attention. However, the top leadership is behind the scenes making sure that the "liberal" message has as little effect as possible. I know this because I have been in leadership meetings where some very bad counsel was given. This is not the panelists' fault, I know. The fault lies at the feet of the Q15.

This is very personal to me. People who I love were damaged by the sexual messages the church passed along. My own neuroses, I am dealing with. However, I am close to several others who need to let go of the damaging misinformation they have been given. Frankly, I am also dealing with the guilt I feel about passing along this crap in the past.

[Dravin]

So, lets just be schizophrenic about LDS sex and slam things back and forth, freaking members out and getting into the bedroom of the saints. This is healthy...heck....we don't care about divorce. Oh no...we just care about "follow the prophet". If the DAMN PROPHET WOULD LEAD,...MAYBE I WOULD CONSIDER FOLLOWING!

Careful what you wish for. A prophet who actually lead and was willing to lead the church in a direction you like would be pretty nice, on the other hand Brigham Young was certainly willing to be a leader and pull the church in his wake. A dictatorship is nice when the dictator is benevolent, if they aren't benevolent then I'd argue an ineffective gerontocracy is preferable.

[Corsair]

Careful what you wish for. A prophet who actually lead and was willing to lead the church in a direction you like would be pretty nice, on the other hand Brigham Young was certainly willing to be a leader and pull the church in his wake. A dictatorship is nice when the dictator is benevolent, if they aren't benevolent then I'd argue an ineffective gerontocracy is preferable.

Brigham Young was the tyrant the nascent LDS church needed at the time. The story of economic development of Utah in the 19th century cannot be told without his important contributions.

[LaMachina]

Which one was right?....they very much disagreed! Answer...they were BOTH RIGHT!...because BOTH TEACHINGS EXIST OUT THERE!

I would humbly submit that the above is the case with literally EVERY religion ever created. It's why the most vile bigot of the Westboro Baptist church and the dear, sweet sister 70 of the Community of Christ can both claim the same faith.

I heard the other day (I believe it was Daniel Dennett) that God couldn't possibly exist because if you were to jot down the characteristics of God as imagined in the minds of each individual believer, even those who claim the same faith, that they would contradict so egregiously as to render the definition nonsense.

But anyways, it seems to me that every religious revolutionary has been driven by this idea that the Doctrine doesn't jive with the Theology. I would suggest it is what drove individuals like Martin Luther and even Joseph Smith. Sometimes it goes off the rails with new and culty faiths, sometimes it ends in someone getting burned at the stake or excommunicated. Hopefully these "small time" revolutionaries like Jennifer Finlayson Fife and Natasha Helfer Parker can make some waves and help some hurting people to be a little less self-loathing and find a little more joy in living.

Anecdotally I can say they've had a very positive effect on my own life. As believing members my wife was quite disturbed that our young son discovered his penis and seemed pretty enthralled with it. Certain friends shared her concern and suggested intervention was necessary. Natasha's blog was great and provided her a great deal of relief. And it was probably one of those small things that eventually led my wife to conclude that the Mormon church just wasn't worth the hassle.

[Rob4Hope]

I just finished listening to the podcast. I'm pissed. Like others, I appreciate JFF's attempts to make the LDS church more sex positive and a healthier environment, but the response from the church has been so slow as to be non-existent, at least on human lifetime scales. Ok, the church got rid of "little factories" and the word "masturbation" in FTSOF. That does not stop our church leaders from taking the toxic messages they absorbed as youth, combining them with the toxic messages about sex addiction and homosexuality the church is selling today, and creating a toxic cocktail that threatens the mental well being and lives of the members. The church uses "liberal" members like JFF to tell the world that we are normal and caring. The toxicity is hidden behind excuses that local leaders just need to learn more or pay better attention. However, the top leadership is behind the scenes making sure that the "liberal" message has as little effect as possible. I know this because I have been in leadership meetings where some very bad counsel was given. This is not the panelists' fault, I know. The fault lies at the feet of the Q15.

This is very personal to me. People who I love were damaged by the sexual messages the church passed along. My own neuroses, I am dealing with. However, I am close to several others who need to let go of the damaging misinformation they have been given. Frankly, I am also dealing with the guilt I feel about passing along this crap in the past.

You ain't alone friend.... what you are saying here resonates with me. This topic was the one that crashed my shelf. I got tired of feeling like a sewer rat for having feelings in the first place, feelings which church guys like BRM said were of the devil.

I think the Q15 are in trouble actually. They have long standing policies, expressed clearly by guys like Oaks, that the church will not apologize. Furthermore, we know from historical trends that the church doesn't issue corrections except in VERY VERY VERY rare circumstances, like the Blacks & Priesthood issues -- and even that was disingenuous if you ask me. The historical pathway is to ever so slowly change, and hope that those who believe certain things die out,...and that the things written will be forgotten. And that brings us right back to what you said above..."...at least on human lifetime scales."

Yep...I'm picking up what your laying down on this....

[redjay]

As I've said in the past I've marched my teen children into see the bishop when I've found out about sexual stuff. I feel as if I have been party to ecclesiastic abuse and impropriety - not cool at all, I regret it.

[redjay]

(mormons and sex) gosh its about the only pleasure they let us have then they dress it up in those hideous panties: oh, the irony