Banner of Heaven
Many are called, but few are chosen.
Many are cold, but few are frozen.
 June 27, 2005

Aaron — June 27 @ 8:04pm

I kept meaning to comment on Miranda’s post on divorce. But now there’s so many comments I’m afraid the important things I have to say would get overlooked. So why not take advantage of my chance as a blogger here to make a whole post out of it and thereby shake the earth as with the voice of a trump. I know I promised another post on learning. I know the intellectual types, most of you, are anxious to be confounded again by the weak and simple, me. Don’t worry. I’ll get to that other post next week. But now, hearken! I have three points related to Miranda’s post.

Point the first. On spilling seed and divorce. In the comments to Sep’s post A Man Alone one reader who I will not name, expressed pleasure in crapping. Which disgusted Septimus who thought another solo activity was more understandable. For this other solo activity I prefer the scriptural term, spilling seed. But then in a surprising twist in Miranda’s post the reader finding pleasure in crapping was disgusted in the strongest terms with spilling seed. I guess this reader and Septimus won’t be getting together anytime soon. As their tolerance of solo activities are opposite.

Anyway a little weird on that reader’s thing for crapping, but so far so good on being disgusted with spilling seed. Spilling seed is expressly repugnant to the commandments of God, was not Onan slain by the Lord? And this shows how serious the Lord is about using our seed to multiply and replenish the earth and not for selfish pleasure trying to avoid posterity. Remember how I have posted about our great purpose in this life.

But then the crapping pleasure reader went off track. Which shows as King Benjamin said, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them. So many ways to go wrong even if one starts right. She said disgust with spilling seed was not a moral point but as a matter of taste. So strongly that she would divorce someone over it while she would not over adultry. Well if the Lord would slay Onan for spilling seed divorce would not be too severe either. If the divorce was done for the right reason, an understanding of the importance of not wasting and befouling the fountains of life. But to divorce only over a matter of taste is a gross wickedness. And in this she ends up in agreement with Miranda’s point. A pernitious notion about the so called modern woman being free to divorce for the sake of her so called happiness. Which is most unfortunate.

Point the second. Many are called but few are chosen. It is true that men are naturally inclined to love many women. And this is a reflection of God’s character and reflects the order of heaven. And Joseph introduced this but the world could not bear it. And because the world hath rejected this holy practice which would have renovated and purified the entire world, we see instead the results in the perversities of pornography and spilling seed that have been spoken of. Not to mention other rising tides of immorality and lasiviousness.

And so it is a great trial now for righteous men to withold unnaturally. To live contrary to the divine nature. And yes most cannot do it. But it is a test of faith and purity to see who will be entrusted with these great powers in eternity. How many priesthood holders fail is a question that has been asked. And as with all things the answer is in the word of the Lord. Who in D&C 132 told Joseph that he would receive an hundredfold of wives. And told that fallen David’s wives were given to another. By which together we are given to understand, that the wives of those who fail in purity shall be given to those who are worthy, and that this ratio is one hundred to one. And thus we see, that many are called but few are chosen.

Point the third. Many are cold but few are frozen. The delicate matter of the joy of women in becoming one flesh has been raised. In the comments to Miranda’s post. And when women have difficulty with this the world uses the term “frigid”. Hence my phrase many are cold but few are frozen, to aid the memory of these principles. To overcome this many suggest turning to worldly books and so called marriage manuals. Which are really a false cover for pornography and ilicit stimulation. And this is Satan’s insidious way of opening curiosity to a world of perversity, and falling into strange and forbidden paths. And by opening this door one is on very dangerous ground, opening one’s holy union to pollution and defilement.

Joy in sexual union is very important. This is why in Joseph F. Smith’s vision of the dead they looked upon their absence from their bodies as a bondage. And why the revelations say that it takes the union of body and spirit in the resurection to receive a fulness of joy.

But the righteous path to a fulness of joy in becoming one flesh is to aquire more of the divine nature. For in this act one is most like God as Elder Holland taught. And how do we become more like God. As Nephi says after we enter in through the gate the Holy Ghost will teach us all things what we should do. And naturally this includes knowledge of this most divine union. And so those who are righteous and pure will be blessed with the knowledge and power to receive a fulness of joy in their relations. And many hearts have waxed cold because they refuse to come together for the right purpose, and this clouds their joy in union. Hence many are cold; but few are frozen, and if they repent and seek with all their heart and seek to multiply and replenish the earth in righteousness, the satisfaction that has eluded them will come unbidden as the dews from heaven.


  1. I never understood why Onan’s thing gets mixed up w/ masturbation. He wasn’t masturbating, but allegedly withdrew from intercourse at point of ejaculation. That said, most people interpret the story as Onan was punished for not living up to his obligation to impregnate his brother’s widow he just married (an ancient custom/obligation not followed today.), not for the act of withdrawing at point of ejaculation. In any event, what Onan allegedly did is a risky birth control technique practiced by billions w/o fear of Onan’s punishment.

    Also, as with most scripture, we only have on side of the story. For all we knew Onan died of natural causes during his climax. His wife screams. People come and see his semen on the ground and say, oh the lord struck him down for… … … … …

    In any event, only the BRM’s and BKP’s of the world confuse Onan w/ masturbation.

    Steve EM — June 27, 2005 @ 8:33pm
  2. The example of Onan isn’t the most persuasive. He was sleeping with his dead brother’s widowed wife in order to raise seed for him and he intentionally took measures to not raise the seed. This is wrong for so many other important reasons than mere masturbation. He was essentially whoring out his brother’s wife.

    Jeffrey Giliam — June 27, 2005 @ 9:16pm
  3. It is true that men are naturally inclined to love many women. And this is a reflection of God’s character and reflects the order of heaven.

    Surely you must see how sexist this belief is.

    P.S. This is actually a reflection of the evolutionary history of mankind.

    Jeffrey Giliam — June 27, 2005 @ 9:18pm
  4. It should also be mentioned that having sex for the purpose of “being one” is mentioned BEFORE having sex for procreation was even possible. While I certainly don’t want to belittle having sex for procreation (in the proper context which I believe extents well beyond merely being married), I think that our considering recreational sex between a man and wife some how “bad” is totally inappropriate and without scriptural justification.

    Jeffrey Giliam — June 27, 2005 @ 9:22pm
  5. Aaron, I think I love you.

    For the record, my disgust was directed at (porn-)assisted spilling. Unassisted spillage, well, that’s a separate issue I won’t comment on. And for the next record, it’s not that I think assistance isn’t a moral issue, simply that my inability to stay married to someone who requires assistance isn’t a moral issue. I wouldn’t go out to dinner with somebody who eats, say, a Hardee’s monster thickburger every night; it’s not a moral issue, just an issue of gustatory preference.

    Don’t let this stop you, though. Carry on. Global warming could only be a good thing, I think. Especially with a hundred suns in the sky.

    The Reader — June 27, 2005 @ 9:37pm
  6. This was the most hilarious post I have read in a long time. Though, I prever Mr. Flanders terminology - marination and prawns.

    For the record: we should all strive for mutual pleasure. Sucks to be your wife, Aaron.

    J. Stapley — June 27, 2005 @ 9:43pm
  7. Let me rephrase that - We should all strive for mutual pleasure in our maaiges.

    J. Stapley — June 27, 2005 @ 9:44pm
  8. Behold the power of unabashed, unmediated, linear thinking.

    Robot — June 27, 2005 @ 11:08pm
  9. Dang. I thought this was going to be a post about missionaries being called to Canada.

    Kim Siever — June 27, 2005 @ 11:17pm
  10. I’m with J. Stapely and The Reader.

    Man, Aaron, just when I think I’ve heard your best, you come up with something even better. You do not disappoint.

    Justin H — June 27, 2005 @ 11:29pm
  11. Aaron:
    Truly you have delusions of grandeur. You’re going to shake the earth with the voice of a trump? Are you an angel? Get some professional help, for your own sake and your family.

    Scott — June 28, 2005 @ 7:17am
  12. Aaron, I think this is possibly the grossest post I’ve read in awhile (except for the craziness at Feminist Housewives). Eew.

    Jenn — June 28, 2005 @ 8:42am
  13. I know the intellectual types, most of you, are anxious to be confounded again by the weak and simple, me.

    This is a joke, right?

    Jeffrey Giliam — June 28, 2005 @ 10:29am
  14. Youre point about frozen ness also affects another aspect of life. I speak of the poor hearty souls, who marinate their prawns, solely for the benefit of others less fortunate, less able to find seafood on their own. Yes, those who spill their seed not on the ground, but rather take it to the bank. Isn’t that an act of sacrifice, of altruism, of (self?) love? Are these poor troopers on the front lines, these seamen in their long ships — are they just sinners, in the end? Or are they truly saints?

    Jerry Bruckheimer — June 28, 2005 @ 11:00am
  15. Uh, nice title, Aaron. Very clever. You’re a clever man and I don’t think you give yourself enough credit. Called, cold, chosen, frozen. Really clever.

    So I have nothing to say about what you wrote. Mormons talk more about sex than any other damn church I’ve ever heard of. Is it because of polygamy in your history?

    Greg Fox — June 28, 2005 @ 11:03am
  16. no its because of the no sex before marriage policy. by age 21 when mormon men get married their brains have been permanently altered from soaking in too many horomones.

    whatever — June 28, 2005 @ 11:06am
  17. I am shocked and appalled by this level of discourse. Do you people really call yourselves Mormons??!? More like apoustates!

    Church leaders counsel us to be dignified and courteous in our conversations. There is nothing either dignified or courteous about this nonesense. Aren’t we taught as Boy Scouts “A Scout is . . . courteous.” Is it so hard to live by that? I’m proud of my Eagle Scout and I wear it every day. I doubt that any of you even know what that means.

    I hope that you talk with your priesthood leaders. This kind of thing cannot continue! And read your scriptures. Follow the prophets. Only if we stand up to tyranny will we be able to fight off evil and protect our families from the clutches of Satan.

    Jonathan North, D.D.S.

    Jonathan North, D.D.S. — June 28, 2005 @ 11:15am
  18. whatever, Mormons aren’t the only ones who believe in no sex before marriage; I’m pretty sure my grandparents waited (although I’d rather not think about it). Maybe this has more to do with a generational thing than a religion thing. Miranda’s post and this one sound like Mormon frat talk.
    Jonathan North, D.D.S., rock on man. You keep wearing that Eagle Scout. I think you’re kidding in your post, but seriously, if people know how much Mormons talk about sex, you’d probably have a lot more followers. This is the dirty underside that most of us never see about you guys.

    Greg Fox — June 28, 2005 @ 11:26am
  19. Dr. North, this is nothing. Hang around.

    I thought this was a thread about cryosurgery or you know where they freeze people to wake them up later.

    I don’t understand the thing about marinade and prawns, but if it’s disgusting, it’s okay if I never learn it.

    annegb — June 28, 2005 @ 12:33pm
  20. It strikes me as very post-modern to see posts like this one next to posts by Jenn, Mari, Greg, and Miranda. So we’ve got the sane ones (Jenn, Mari, Greg, and Miranda) and the lunatic fringe (Aaron and Septimus) posting right alongside each other and pretending that everything is fine. On the one hand, I’d like to congratulate Jenn, Mari, Greg, and Miranda for embracing the other. On the other hand, I’m left to wonder if they are even aware off who they’ve gotten in bed with here.

    DKL — June 28, 2005 @ 12:35pm
  21. Jonathan North, D.D.S., I respectfully disagree with your prognosis. Aaron Cox is a sociopath, not an apostate.

    Doogie Howser, M.D.

    Doogie Howser, M.D. — June 28, 2005 @ 12:43pm
  22. “As Nephi says after we enter in through the gate the Holy Ghost will teach us all things what we should do. And naturally this includes knowledge of this most divine union.”

    Following this logic, after we are converted and baptised, should we drop out of school and rely on the Holy Ghost for all our learning? I think not.

    Clearly, the Lord wants us to do everything we can to learn for ourselves, and the Holy Ghost will help us where we run into problems we cannot solve on our own.

    So why not persue sexual learning? As long as there is no pornography involved, what is the problem?

    Karl Butcher — June 28, 2005 @ 12:54pm
  23. Mr. Masturbation calls me “lunatic fringe.” Among those once considered in the lunatic fringe are this nation’s founding fathers, early Christians, and Joseph Smith and his followers. So I say, stick it, DKL.

    Small-minded people always resist unfamiliar ideas, mock them, and try to supress them. If I’m lunatic fringe I am lunatic fringe and proud!

    SeptimusH — June 28, 2005 @ 1:04pm
  24. ROTFLMAO. That’s awesome. I’d actually start using Mr. Masturbation as an alias if I were sure that it would get me banned at M*. You’re too much, Septimus! But since untold numbers of lunatics were also once considered to be among the lunatic fringe, you’ve either got delusions of grandeur or you’re terrible with statistical probability calculus.

    DKL — June 28, 2005 @ 1:11pm
  25. Hey, DKL isn’t alone. I’m pro-masturbation too. There are also positive aspects to formication, but I’m not going to say I’m pro-fornication. That would be going to far.

    Why did T&S kick you off?

    Steve EM — June 28, 2005 @ 1:43pm
  26. It was a gradual process. It probably started back when Dave drank all of the beer at the bloggersnacker. Not a good way to make friends.

    And then there was the fondue incident.

    Kaimi — June 28, 2005 @ 1:50pm
  27. Steve (FSF), I’m not exactly pro-masturbation. I’m not sure what I did to prompt Septimus to say that I’m Mr. Masturbation. Since I he’s a lunatic anyway, I don’t know that a reasonable answer can be expected. But I thought it funny nonetheless.

    Times and Seasons actually banned me twice. I’ve explained the first time here, and the second time here. Since first time was a very short period, I’ll just give a recap of the second version:

    I made a rude comment to Neil Labute (you’d have done it, too, if you saw how obsequious everybody was being and how rudely Labute was responding; you can see the entire debacle unfold right here), and a rather rude, top-that-insult type exchange ensued between him and me. And though Mr. Labute was mostly angry at the perma-bloggers for editing his comments, I got the blame for his bout of ill temper, and my exchange with him and my historical unwillingness to cease using the term chick and my propensity to inject humor into boring conversations (like here and here) –all this resulted in my being put in blog jail (i.e., the moderation queue) on T&S. Some time later, I let myself out of blog jail through the magic of TCP/IP routing tables, which angered the T&S perma-bloggers even more. Finally, referring to an exchange between Rosalynde and a couple of her immediate female relatives, I made a comment to the effect of, “You crazy Frandsen chicks. You make me wish they all could be California girls.” This “chick” comment and a joke about Wilfried being an brown-noser (well, he is) got me banned for good at T&S.

    DKL — June 28, 2005 @ 3:16pm
  28. DKL, nobody’s interested in your sob stories, which we’ve already heard.

    Jenn — June 28, 2005 @ 4:08pm
  29. DKL,
    Thanks for the explanation.

    When T&S kicked me off I thought it was for commenting that people getting frequent sex are calm and content and my undergrad studies at BYU became much easier after I threw in the towel and became sexually active. I had mentioned in another comment I had served an honorable mission before that, so I figured somebody freaked out about it all. But, I later found out it was for allegedly being too graphic in a description of how my wife and I are amused by porn, they way they get right down to business, etc.

    Bunch of prudes at T&S n’est-ce pas? Wanna start an “anything goes” LDS blog?

    Steve EM — June 28, 2005 @ 4:17pm
  30. Aaron, I do not know where to begin. First, we block our “seed” from doing its duty on a regular basis. Blocking “seed” is no different than spilling it when it comes to “using our seed to multiply and replenish the earth and not for selfish pleasure trying to avoid posterity.” See it for what it is.

    And the “rising tides of immorality and lasiviousness (sic)” is due to uncontrolled urges because of polygamy not continuing? Hah! Most guys could have ten wives and they would still have the same problems they have now. Except, they would be much more tired.

    And marriage manuals “are really a false cover for pornography and ilicit (sic) stimulation”? –How about helping couples finally figure out explicit stimulation. We learn from the writings of experts in every area of our lives except one of THE most important areas?

    Frankly, I have no desire for multiple wives or to rule in reign over my own little kingdoms in heaven. Maybe that will change when the “veil” drops. We’ll see.

    And Jonathan, drop the degree from your name. I mean, dental school is a tough road, but is your degree inseparable from your identity in a blog post?

    And I’d like to thank “The Reader” for stating that he loves Aaron. I think we really need to be more forthright with things like that. Based on her wonderful posts and similar sensibilities, I am starting to fall for Jenn. The fact that she is also gorgeous just seals the deal.

    Hermey — June 28, 2005 @ 4:21pm
  31. Jenn, if you think these are sob-stories, then you don’t get around much. I wear my expulsion from T&S like a badge of honor, baby. And I plan to bring it up every time I get the chance even if it does irritate you and Davis Bell.

    DKL — June 28, 2005 @ 4:31pm
  32. Ha ha! Too funny Karl (post #22). Who needs school post-baptism? If you are ever in the area, stop by and help me decipher some papyri I just picked up. …Darn that Rosetta Stone!

    Lurch — June 28, 2005 @ 4:38pm
  33. Lest anyone think that DKL is having all the fun, let me point out that we, too, wear our expulsion of DKL as a badge of honor. I try to bring it up as often as possible. I stop total strangers in the subway and say “did you know that we banned DKL?”

    (By the way, I’m wondering if there’s a way to implement a “signature” function for this blog, like there is on message boards. If so, please let me know. I’d like to have my sig line reference the fact that I participated in the banning of DKL.)

    It’s so hard to show that pride sometimes. But I’m working on a beta version of the T & S template that should make more clear our pride in having banned DKL. What do you guys think?

    Kaimi — June 28, 2005 @ 5:05pm
  34. I think DKL and I should start an LDS blog. We could call it T&A and he could have the J. Golden Kimball chair.

    Steve EM — June 28, 2005 @ 5:16pm
  35. That was the funniest things I’ve seen in a while.

    Jeffrey Giliam — June 28, 2005 @ 5:18pm
  36. Wow, Kaimi. I’m impressed. That’s genuinely and thoroughly funny.

    So tell me: How have you managed to keep your sense of humor so carefully hidden all this time?

    DKL — June 28, 2005 @ 5:24pm
  37. Enjoyable post #30, Hermey. Ditto on the wives thing (and the Jenn thing… great picture).

    Lurch — June 28, 2005 @ 5:26pm
  38. Aaron, I’m fascinated by your attempt to extract quantitative lessons from the scriptures, but I have a quibble. Doesn’t the famous passage in Isaiah indicate that the ratio will be 7 to 1, rather than 100 to 1?

    Also, your euphemism “spilling seed” is inadequate to cover the female instantiation of the phenomenon in question.

    Christian Y. Cardall (TSM) — June 28, 2005 @ 6:07pm
  39. The corporate management of Times and Seasons thanks you for your inquiry. We appreciate your interest in Times and Seasons.

    I’m sorry, there is no entry in the database for the search term “humor.” Please try again.

    Kaimi — June 28, 2005 @ 6:12pm
  40. Christian,

    Just to nitpick, I don’t think that the term “seed” necessarily meant sperm as used in the Old Testament. After all, they didn’t know what sperm was. (If someone was physically incapable of producing actual sperm, but still produced seminal fluid, I suspect your ancient Hebrew would certainly call that fluid “seed.”)

    You’re probably right on the broader point, though. I doubt that the term as used at that time included fluids secreted by women.

    Kaimi — June 28, 2005 @ 6:36pm
  41. And to add to Christian’s point –

    If the sin in question is really about seed spilling — taking sperm that could be used to make a baby, and spilling them on the ground instead, a la Onan — then doesn’t it apply differently to men as compared to women? If a woman . . . err, marinates . . . she does not lose potential reproductive material in the process.

    (On the flip side, given advances in technology, should we really think that it’s about seed spilling anymore? A single man can produce millions of sperm in a day. Why the need for conservation?)

    Kaimi — June 28, 2005 @ 6:41pm
  42. This blog is devolving rapidly. I shouldn’t even comment on a thread that has gone so heinously wrong (but I am, so I guess that says a lot about me, huh). Most of these comments ought to be deleted- this is the most disgusting discussion I have read in a long time. I feel dirty for having even read it.

    I have nothing against a good doctrinal discussion on some of the problems facing young men, but if this post even ever was such a thing, it has long since devolved into disucssion that makes the face turn red- if I were listening to this I probably would have walked away a while ago. I guess I should do the same thing as a reader.

    The blog is called banner of heaven- not carnal sensations 101. I generally enjoy this blog- but won’t be able to if someone can’t put a stop to all of this.

    Jordan — June 28, 2005 @ 7:29pm
  43. I second Jordan’s rebellious comment; let the sinners be banned from this site with all their sex talk and what not. How dare the people of this blog let us even mention things that relate to sex; who’s up for a court-trial for this deviant behaviour!

    We can do it together, Jordon, one blog at a time. Vivre les puritans!

    Puritan Winthrop — June 28, 2005 @ 7:43pm
  44. I should leave- I should. But I have no self control.

    I am not advocating what you say I am. I never said things like sex should not be discussed. Never said it.

    But there is a respectful way to approach sacred things, and the line from respectful into completely crass and out of line has been crossed. IMHO.

    Jordan — June 28, 2005 @ 7:45pm
  45. Now I agree that some of the comments have probably been a little graphic, it would appear to me that the only time things got “dirty” was when people tried to use childish euphemisms to describe what is not only natural but very good. When people can’t speak of masturbation (be it a sin or not) without getting either a “dirty feeling” or a bad case of the giggles it only shows that they need to grow up.

    Again let me emphasize, I am not defending all comments made here, only those made by myself and others who commented with the same maturity and respect.

    Jeffrey Giliam — June 28, 2005 @ 7:48pm
  46. You’re absolutely right, Jordan.

    DKL — June 28, 2005 @ 7:50pm
  47. Thanks for the feedback, Jordan. We have acted decisively to eradicate the offending posts that discussed very specific sexual acts and specific bodily functions in fairly crass terms.

    Banner of Heaven — June 28, 2005 @ 8:43pm
  48. While I don’t argue with the editing, for the record, common respectful medical terms were objected to here, not crass street jargon.

    Steve EM — June 28, 2005 @ 8:59pm
  49. Can’t speak for all of us, but we wanted to have frank, honest, and open discussions in a way that you don’t find at other blogs out there at this blog. See here. We rarely delete comments (check out that p0rn thread) and don’t plan ever on banning people (knocking on wood here). We have no comments policy. How nice if we never need one.

    But we also try to respect our readers and we try to show appreciation to each person we’ve managed to get to visit. See here. I guess on this thread the two ideas of free expression and reader respect conflicted and we chose to err on the side of respecting what probably was the majority of our readers. I hope everyone can still enjoy the greater freedom of this blog and the responsibility that comes with it. Gag. Sounds like I’m running for student body president. Quick, somebody delete this comment.

    SeptimusH — June 29, 2005 @ 1:49am
  50. So are DKL and SFSF teaming up on their own weblog or not? SFSF certainly seems excited about it, although DKL doesnt appear to have responded to the inquiry (did DKL snub SFSF? Or was his reply deleted because of other offensive content? The drama!). I, for one, very eagerly anticipate the exceptionally high quality material a stunning collaboration such as this one would produce, and the opportunity to comment on it freely, in the unfettered environment SFSF wants. There can be no doubt that many others feel the same way I do, and given their past performance it is equally doubtless they will be completely fair, objective, and even-handed in their moderation of said weblog. Oh, the anticipation is killing me.

    Kurt — June 29, 2005 @ 9:50am
  51. Kurt,
    Glad to hear from you. As far as I know, DKL isn’t interested in doing an “anything goes” LDS blog. Truth be told, I’m not sure I’d have time for it myself, and DKL probaly knows that. In any event, I would have to team with a person(s) a la yourself or DKL who is better read than I am. As a professional physical scientist, most of my reading is technical stuff which has little value to a lay audience.

    Sorry Ididn’t stop sooner at BCC. Hey, but I was right ,wasn’t I? It helps a lot.

    Steve EM — June 29, 2005 @ 10:26am
  52. SFSF, youre a “professional physical scientist”? Is that what theyre calling it now? Huh.

    Gee, can I assume you would be willing to “team” with someone such as myself? Golly, the honor of being considered worthy of teaming with someone such as yourself. I blush at the thought. And to be put in the same boat as DKL, I swoon. But, wait, arent I a little too “extreme” for you? If my memory serves me, you equated me with BRM and BKP, and perhaps Doritos as well, despite the lack of any supporting evidence. Being the incredibly gracious, sensitive, and moderate fellow that you are, I find it surprising you would be willing to partner with a radical such as myself. Still, nonetheless, I am terribly flattered.

    Um, no, you werent any more right than your assumption that I am single. But, hey, why collect data before drawing conclusions, right? And, I accept your apology. Far be it from me to doubt your sincerity.

    Kurt — June 29, 2005 @ 11:16am
  53. Married, single? What’s the dif if one isn’t getting enough to keep everything calm and healthy? Regarding my teaming w/ others, yes I could team w/ an extremist. I just need someone better read than I am that would keep such a blog interestiing. The condition would be “any thing goes”, no edits/deletions, F word welcome, etc.

    Steve EM — June 29, 2005 @ 12:03pm
  54. SFSF, so the other half of the team would provide substantive content, and you would provide the entertainment, kind of like Laurel and Hardy, Mutt and Jeff, Abbott and Costello, right? You realize of course that any such blog as that would effectively undercut bcc of its raison de’tre. Hmmmm. Tempting, oh so tempting. Tell you what, if you let me name it “Contention is of the Bloggernacle” I’ll do it. It would be the septic tank of the Bloggernacle. Wow. Are you sure you can take time away from your “professional physical scientist” thingy to be the Costello to my Abbott?

    Kurt — June 29, 2005 @ 12:33pm
  55. I know that there is already an angry Mormon blog out there that is full of the sorts of things that Steve (FSF) is describing. I am not sure which one it is, maybe this:

    Also, I find it strange that several times I have submitted comments to this blog only to find that they have vanished. I haven’t posted anything offensive. For example, I posted a thank-you to Kaimi for that link to the beta site for T&S and it is gone. What is up with that?

    a random john — June 29, 2005 @ 12:51pm
  56. Kurt,
    I’m willing, but how much time are we talking about? Would I do a post a week? As far as undercutting BCC, they’re not even close to what I’m talking about in terms of honest open discussion. Like I’m on the East Coast and we’re in a tropical air mass, high 80’s F and light rain (100% humidity). Where can someone do a post declaring that only an extreme sicko masochist would be wearing their G’s in this weather and saying they’re comfy going to the temple and only putting on their G’s once they’re inside in the AC?

    A random John,
    Thanks for the link, but he’s seems like a non-believer that, for whatever reason, still goes. I’m a believing, active, but free thinking, Mormon. Think of me like an apprentice cynic, not a full blown one.

    Steve EM — June 29, 2005 @ 1:56pm
  57. Steve (FSF) and others - I think it would be useful to have a “realistic” Mormon blog where people who have struggled with (and indulged in or not) homosexuality, fornication, adultery, etc. - you know, the major sins, could talk about how this behavior affected their relationship with God and the Church (and resulting inactivity, disfellowshipment, etc.).

    I’d like to see a blog like this, but I worry that people might use it as an opportunity to brag about how many people they slept with, or how they got away with lying to their bishop.

    So, I think a blog focused on repentence and a person’s struggle to fit back into a Church that focuses on wholesome living and perfection would be a good idea. The Angry Mormon guy is great, but his blog is mostly venting his frustration (which seemed to have worked for him. He hasn’t posted in a while).

    Elisabeth — June 29, 2005 @ 2:13pm
  58. Kaimi,

    I remembered what else was in my deleted post thanking you for that special site! I know you are excited too. It was that with Slashcode you get sig functionality built-in!

    a random john — June 29, 2005 @ 2:33pm
  59. I think that this post fits in well with the topic as of late:

    I am sure Ros has one.

    Lurch — June 29, 2005 @ 2:46pm
  60. Well Elisabeth, if Kurt still wants me, I’m sure you’d be welcome to join us, but it would have to be “anything goes”, meaning we wouldn’t edit the braggers, the bisexual guy who gave his wife aids, etc.

    Steve EM — June 29, 2005 @ 2:47pm
  61. Elisabeth, I think you’re right that such a blog would quickly turn into a game of top that sin.

    Kurt, I have no plans of blogging with Steve FSF. Though I have often said outrageous things in an attempt to be humorous, I am put off by SFSF for many of the same reasons that I am put off by Aaron; to wit, when he says outrageous things he is totally serious. And I don’t think that you’re too extreme at all. In fact, I think that many of your opinions are basically mainstream opinions (e.g., your view of the word of wisdom and your utter distaste for me personally). It’s just that your attempts to defend them on intellectual grounds have struck me as pretty far fetched.

    DKL — June 29, 2005 @ 2:48pm
  62. SFSF, OK, I was totally not even remotely serious, but now I am having second thoughts because of Elisabeth’s comments. If this “Contention is of the Bloggernacle” site could act as a bleed valve for the Bloggernacle, then perhaps it could serve some useful purpose, in providing outfall for the other “legitimate” blogs. I am in the same tropical airmass and wear my Gs even when mowing the lawn, so I guess I am a masochist in addition to being an extremist, by your standards anyway. Youre not a cynic, youre a contrarian. I am a cynic.

    Kurt — June 29, 2005 @ 2:59pm
  63. DKL, I do find your means of advancing your opinions to be distatesful, as common dictates of civil discourse deem them innapropriate. And if you consider demonstable historical facts which clearly contradict your a priori assumptions to be “far fetched”, then so be it. No point in letting reality impose on your view of things.

    So does that mean you will play with us in our little blogscapade?

    Kurt — June 29, 2005 @ 3:04pm
  64. I don’t want to be associated with a blog that encouraged people to “brag” about destructive behavior. There are plenty of websites out there where people brag about their conquests, drug abuse, addictions and other destructive behavior (and I was going to make a joke about how I already blog at a website like this, but I’ll decline).

    Anyway, I’m not sure how you’d police a blog dealing with homosexuality, fornication, addictions (especially to things like child pornography - I just don’t want to read about that) to make sure that the tone was positive and faith promoting, so I guess the idea wouldn’t work after all.

    Elisabeth — June 29, 2005 @ 3:05pm
  65. P.S. Many of my family members haven’t been to Church in years, and one of their reasons (among many) is that Mormons just seem too perfect - and that they (my brothers and sisters) just don’t feel comfortable around the Molly Mormons and Peter Priesthoods that populate most Mormon wards.

    While I think it’s important to emphasize the “ideal”, so many of us fall short of that ideal that I think it would be refreshing to talk about the real struggles we face in our lives instead of worrying about whether or not to drink Coke. For those who have to deal with other issues like rape, homosexuality, drug abuse, etc., it’s tough to feel comfortable in an environment where the main topics seem to be people taking offense at the Ensign articles (I was offended, too - just using this as an example).

    Anyway, I think it’s probably too tall an order to provide a place for people who struggle with difficult issues to talk about them with other Mormons without degenerating into a pity party (or worse). But I think there is a real need in the Mormon community to accept that we all struggle with some really, really difficult issues at some points in our lives, and that just because everyone looks happy and perfect at Church on Sunday, you shouldn’t assume you don’t belong if you’re struggling.

    Elisabeth — June 29, 2005 @ 3:18pm
  66. Well there you have it. My preference would be to team with liberal arts type people who would assure sustainable momentum for such an “anything goes” blog, but I guess I’m on my own in such an endeavor.

    Steve EM — June 29, 2005 @ 3:22pm
  67. a random John, re: comment #55–I’ve noticed that I have to click on the Submit button more than once to have my comments show up. Actually, I have to click on the Submit button, click back in the text area where I write my comments, and then click on the Submit button again. Something buggy with the site, possibly a Firefox browser issue (is that what you’re using?), my guess is it’s caused by however the comment preview is being generated.

    Susan M — June 29, 2005 @ 3:31pm
  68. Why don’t you start your own blog, Steve (FSF)??

    Elisabeth — June 29, 2005 @ 3:51pm
  69. Elisabeth,
    I think I just might, but I’m reluctant for reasons already mentioned. I do hear you about people driven from church because they aren’t superfically with the program (nobody is deep down, it just looks that way superfically). Maybe I’ll call the blog “Mormon Hospital”, sounds better than “Mormon Sewer”. The slogan could be “we take the sickest”.

    Steve EM — June 29, 2005 @ 4:32pm
  70. What I find really funny is how I thought this was a thread about the merits of being frozen and brought back to life. I wish it was/were.

    annegb — June 29, 2005 @ 4:53pm
  71. Kurt: if you consider demonstrable historical facts which clearly contradict your a priori assumptions to be “far fetched,” then so be it…

    I consider your “demonstrable historical facts” to be irrelevant and therefore the conclusions that you draw from them to be non sequitur (e.g., your reasoning seems to lead to the conclusion that because the D&C says go to bed early and arise early, and because the full time missionaries are commanded to go to bed at 9:30pm [or so] and arise at 6:00pm [or so], then we must also). The only way to arrive at the conclusion that such evidence as you present is relevant is to assume your position a priori and find information that can be wrenched from its original context to support it and dismiss any evidence that contradicts it (e.g., your utterly unique finding that Thomas Alexander’s definitive article in Dialogue is ill-informed).

    What is funny is that my position (that until Grant made it a recommend requirement, the Word of Wisdom was no more of a moral imperative than the year supply) is quite closer to yours than the opinion of most Mormons who are historically informed about the Word of Wisdom. Most of them tend to think that I am according too much historical importance to the Word of Wisdom.

    DKL — June 29, 2005 @ 4:53pm
  72. DKL,
    No, No, not the WofW. Not w/ Kurt! How could you? This is worse than a thread jack of a thread jack. It’s an abortion!

    Steve EM — June 29, 2005 @ 5:24pm
  73. In defense of the reader with the alleged “thing for crapping”: First, it’s quite humorous to hear someone as full of shit as Aaron complain about someone else’s bathroom habits. Second, Aaron’s scatophobia provides a crucial insight into both his mental state and his photo: It is quite likely that Aaron is chronically constipated.

    Call me morally decrepit, Aaron, but I think that everyone should take a nice crap regularly, lest irregularity set in.

    DKL — June 29, 2005 @ 5:25pm
  74. Susan M.,

    You might be right. I am using Firefox, and it seems that I do have to click twice. I have to admit that the live preview feature is very nice though.

    a random john — June 29, 2005 @ 7:06pm
  75. There is a huge difference between a mother getting a few minutes alone in the bathroom, which I believe she was referring to, and the satisfaction of a proper bowel movement. Which as I have reminded you youngsters before, do not take for granted. It will soon enough become very important to you.

    But that few minutes without a child or husband knocking on the door can be just that, a few minutes alone. Give that poor girl a rest.

    And that has nothing to do with being frozen and being brought back to life. Which I have no opinion on.

    annegb — June 29, 2005 @ 8:49pm
  76. Does anybody else think Aaron is just a Banner of Heaven patsy? I gotta believe he is just here to say the most ridiculous things to get people riled up. Who seriously posts about frigid women and calls them to repentance? Seriously.

    Laura — June 29, 2005 @ 9:31pm
  77. Not just a patsy, a Peter-patsy.

    Lurch — June 29, 2005 @ 11:11pm
  78. DKL, morally decrepit? Thats one of the things I like about you, DKL, your willingness to self-diagnose unsolicited. I think its more a matter of ethics than morals, but far be it from me to correct you when navel gazing.

    So, tell me, David, when was the last time a President of the Church in GenConf told all leadership in the Church to step down if they didnt have their Food Storage in order and then followed up shortly thereafter with a First Presidency statment stating the same? When was the last time a FT missionary was denied the opportunity to serve or be issued a Temple Recommend because he didnt have his Food Storage up to 1 year? Oh, never? OK. Well, both of the examples provided above did occur prior to Grant’s tenure as President. And I have pointed this out to you previously, and you have repeatedly ignored it. I guess those are some of the demonstrable historical facts you consider “irrelevant”. But, hey, why let reality intrude?

    And you do seem to have a certain fascination with all things scatological. Whats up with that?

    Kurt — June 30, 2005 @ 7:09am
  79. Kurt, just as with food storage, the emphasis on the Word of Wisdom waxed and waned. Moreover, Grant is the one that provided our definitive definition of Word of Wisdom compliance (zero tolerance for coffee, tea, tobacco, and alcohol), and you equivocate when you assume that the statements made before Grant’s definition mean the same thing that we would take them to mean. You can find the kind of statements you site being made by leaders of all Mormon offshoots, but the fact remains that the we (the SLC LDS) are the only Mormons besides a few polygamous sects that use Grant’s (and therefore our) zero tolerance definition. Like I said, the information to which you refer is irrelevant and your conclusions are non sequitur. This is in keeping with (for example) your tendency to insist on using words based on their etymology rather than their definition, when etymology is logically independent from modern usage (e.g., your insistence on ad hominem meaning “to the man” to the exclusion of an actual definition, which is attacking the opponent’s character rather than answering his arguments.)

    The place to look for insight into the Word of Wisdom isn’t statements made from the podium at a time when church leaders often flew into rhetorical flights of fancy and wild speculation (a la the Adam God doctrine or the doctrine that Jesus had plural wives). The place to look is in the actual practices and policies used by the church. Thus far, the definitive studies of this are in the articles contained in the Autumn 1981 edition of Dialogue (14:3) that I sited on BCC.

    Given the basic irrationality of your approach to research and argumentation, I am mystified by your statement concerning the place of my argumentation within “civil discourse.”

    And regarding my fascinations: I’m a filthy animal, Kurt.

    DKL — June 30, 2005 @ 8:16am
  80. DKL, once again you resort to complete sophistry to avoid the simple facts. Words dont mean what they mean, and what people say is irrelevant, because what really matters is what we think they mean now and what we think they did back then, in the light of our extraordinary enlightenment and knowledge of what we think they did. Talk about post-modern deconstructionism, this is a perfect case and point. Sure, lets reinterpret any historical facts in the light of our modern enlightenment to come to the opposite conclusion. Using this same rationale one could say the Church never took the Law of Chastity seriously, or any other commandment for that matter, since the people never really kept it. Utter nonsense.

    Brimming shovels full of the object of your desire aside, you still havent managed to twist your sophisty around to answer my question. Lets assume for the minute that you are right (which you arent) and the various explicit prohibitions over the pulpit and via First Presidency Statements were not in fact explicit prohibitions, then I am still waiting for you to substantiate your equation with the Food Storage Program. Show me one First Presidency Statement or GenConference statement that anyone not having their Food Storage in order was not to serve in a leadership position in the Church or serve a FT mission. You cannot, because they do not exist. So, all sophistry aside, your equation is false.

    Coming from a guy who is an accomplished sophist, I take the accusation of “irrationality” to be a compliment. To be “rational” by your definition would mean abandoning any appeals to objectivity and external fact. For you, everything becomes a contest of wits and words, evidence notwithstanding.

    Kurt — June 30, 2005 @ 9:11am
  81. Hey Lurch: Peter-patsy is classic. It’s my new favorite.

    Laura — June 30, 2005 @ 9:31am
  82. Kurt, not only am I at a loss to detect an actual argument in your latest comment, but I’m a logical positivist, for crying out loud–that puts me about as far from post-modern deconstruction as one can get. Equivocation occurs exactly because words do have different senses, and it is fallacious to base a conclusion on the conflation of them, and equivocation has been a fallacy since long before “post-modern deconstruction” supposedly entered the equation.

    DKL — June 30, 2005 @ 10:56am
  83. DKL, logical positivist? Whatever. You play fast and loose with words and their meanings constantly, just like any good sophist does, and all good post-modern deconstructionists do. Your inability to detect a logical argument is only a result of your inability to answer the question posed to you, so you attempt to obfuscate with a bunch of your BS in Philosophy clap trap. Youre just trying to change the subject.

    Here is the challenge to you: provide evidence comparable to that which I have submitted to you so you may prove the WofW was taken no more seriously than Food Storage, as is your supposition. If you provide no evidence, then I have proven your supposition to be false.

    Any attempt to change the subject by further obfuscatation or ad hominem attacks will be interepreted by me, and anyone else bothering to read this thread, to be a tacit admission that your supposition is false.

    Address the subject, DKL. Stand behind your words, DKL. Do it if you can, DKL. You cant.

    Kurt — June 30, 2005 @ 11:36am
  84. SFSF, OK, here is your wish come true:

    Unmoderated discussion on any topic using any language all the time.

    Kurt — June 30, 2005 @ 11:38am
  85. Kurt, it’s not your place to (1) define the consequences of my actions, (2) dictate the course that my arguments must take, and (3) speak on behalf of “anyone else bothering to read this thread” without having first obtained their written permission.

    Thump your chest all you like. I consider the questions of whether your “demonstrable historical facts” are irrelevant and whether the conclusions that you draw from them are non sequitur to be settled by the issue of Dialogue that I site and the short exchange we’ve had in these comments. Since it would be inappropriate to reproduce the contents of an issue of Dialogue in a comment at Banner of Heaven, I’ll leave it at that. Unlike you, I’ll venture no prediction to how other readers will react, because I’m quite comfortable letting them speak for themselves.

    DKL — June 30, 2005 @ 12:09pm
  86. Please stop it, both DKL and Kurt! Please!! Stop it!! I can see why Steve Evans banned you both.

    Jenn — June 30, 2005 @ 12:20pm
  87. Jenn, Steve Evans hasn’t banned me yet.

    DKL — June 30, 2005 @ 12:32pm
  88. DKL, once again you try change the subject. Utterly incapable of defending your own position, you try to deflect things away towards other subjects that are out of your hands. Nice. Anyone with common sense can see that when challenged you hop around more than a monkey on a pogo stick, so I am not making any wild assumptions in what people think of you. You yourself said, in post no. 61 that it was “mainstream” to hold “utter distaste for [yourself] personally”. So, if you admit yourself that the mainstream attitude is to find you personally repelent, then why question me on that point? I am surprised you dont want me to get the affidavits notorized.

    Jenn, this trainwreck happened way way back in the teens on this thread (if you overlook the original posting of it to start with) and youre yelling at us now in the 80’s? Youre about 70 comments too late. If you want a nice happy love-filled blog, you need to be a lot more proactive than that. I guess I cant fault you for trying though. And, I have been banned by from bcc, largely because I pointed out that all my good friends there are a bunch of left-wing axe grinders, not because I blacked DKL’s eyes. DKL is still there because he has his nose firmly planted in all the right places.

    Kurt — June 30, 2005 @ 2:33pm
  89. ROTFLMAO. As I said over at BCC, you’re a lunatic and a riot all packaged up into one non-mullet wearing, bowling-ball hating bloggernacle guy! Keep up the good work. I’ll read as long as you comment.

    DKL — June 30, 2005 @ 3:12pm
  90. Ho-hum.

    You both are two of the must unsufferably obnoxious and boring people in the world. You should mate and breed a superrace of human-like beings that can be sent into enemy nations as weapons and bore and annoy the enemy into submission and defeat.

    Jenn must feel like she has two uninvited guests in her living room that have been arguing all night long and don’t know when to leave.

    Brian G — June 30, 2005 @ 3:21pm
  91. Thanks, Brian G. That last comment has given me just enough motivation to go ahead and argue with Kurt some more. But only just barely.

    Kurt, I haven’t changed the subject once here. I’ve just ignored your requests because I find them inane. There’s a difference. On the contrary, you’ve tried to change the subject and maintain that you were correct at every turn, even when you’ve been shown to be wrong. For example, when I pointed out how your data was irrelevant and fallacious because it relied on equivocation, you simply called me a post-modern deconstructionist. This changed the subject by personally attacking me instead of attacking my argument. When I pointed out that you are wrong to assert that I am a post-modern deconstructionist, you said that it didn’t matter that you were wrong, because I was distorting words anyway. So apparently you thought it was meaningful to call me a post-modern deconstructionist before you found out otherwise, and not important once you did.

    I do not have a great motivation to argue with you, because you are ignorant and a very poor reader. Consequently, your response to well researched points or reasoned argument is to call names. This prompts your opponents to either point this out or start ignoring your arguments, in which case you accuse them of calling you names or changing the subject.

    At BCC, I offered a well researched quote from Thomas Alexander’s article in the Dialogue issue that I link to above, and your response was simply to assert that Alexander was wrong and then change the subject. But I won’t hold this against you. If you’d like another chance to actually respond to Alexander’s statement, be my guest. I’ve repeated it here for your convenience.

    The minutes of the meeting record that “President Woodruff said he regarded the Word of Wisdom in its entirety as a given of the Lord for the Latter-day Saints to observe, but he did not think that Bishops should withhold recommends from persons who did not adhere strictly to it.”

    Though it is clear that some church leaders, like Heber J. Grant and Joseph F. Smith, insisted upon complete abstinence from tea, coffee, liquor and all tobacco, all General Authorities were not in agreement on all aspects of the Word of Wisdom. During a discussion in 1900 after he became President of the Church, Lorenzo Snow again emphasized the centrality of not eating meat, a point rarely emphasized by others, and in 1901, John Henry Smith and Brigham Young, Jr., of the Twelve both thought that the Church ought not interdict beer, or at least not Danish beer. Other apostles, like Anthon H. Lund and Matthias F. Cowley also enjoyed Danish beer and currant Wine. Charles W. Penrose actually served wine. Emmeline B. Wells, then a member of the presidency and later president of the Relief Society, drank on occasional cup of coffee, and George Albert Smith took brandy for medicinal reasons. Apostle George Teasdale, agreeing with President Woodruff, thought that no one ought to be kept from working in the Sunday School because he drank tea and that eating pork was a more serious breach than drinking tea or coffee.

    The evidence shows a diffuse pattern both in observing and teaching the Word of Wisdom in 1900.…

    I don’t know about you, but I could go for one of Brigham Jr’s Danish beers right about now.

    DKL — June 30, 2005 @ 3:48pm
  92. Everyone. Good grief. I come back to my post today to see what happened during the week. And it completely ran amuck. What is wrong with you people. There are about 2 comments worth responding to. I was worried enough about taking the time to post once a week. Let alone babysit a disaster like this. Maybe I should turn off all comments on future posts.

    Thank you Jordan for pointing out one big problem I was worried might happen. And thank you co-bloggers for what it looks like editing the worst. Now I see why Jacob approached this kind of subject with such fear and trembling in the Book of Mormon.

    Everyone who dismissed me by name calling. Aaron is a wack-job. Aaron is full of sh—t. Aaron is a patsy. Good grief. Do I look or talk gay to you. What can I say, I guess they said Jesus had a devil too. How often it is that people just get angry and dismisive without support from scripture or revelation. Such comments are not worth the pixils they occupy on my screen. For they offer no instruction. Or inlightenment. But just rejection. In the future do not think such comments will be dignified with a comment. Let alone inspire a new post.

    Those arguing about irrellevant stuff. Go fill up each others email boxes instead of our comments here.

    Aaron B. Cox — June 30, 2005 @ 3:57pm
  93. The Aaronbot is back in action!

    I am now firmly convinced that Aaron B. Cox is in reality a computer program set to elicit the greatest number of comments. How can we not love the unrelenting grammatical and spelling errors, the wistful longing for polygamy, and now the casual homophobia? It’s all priceless.

    NFlanders — June 30, 2005 @ 4:15pm
  94. NF, I think I am in love.

    Steve Evans — June 30, 2005 @ 4:16pm
  95. Wahoo! Aaron might give up on posting insightful comments like, “It is true that men are naturally inclined to love many women. And this is a reflection of God’s character and reflects the order of heaven… And because the world hath rejected this holy practice (polygamy) which would have renovated and purified the entire world, we see instead the results in the perversities of pornography and spilling seed that have been spoken of. Not to mention other rising tides of immorality and lasiviousness(sic).” If there ever was a time for Miranda to rightfully pipe up about ridiculous religious practices implemented by self-serving, male-centric leaders, now would be the time.

    Lurch — June 30, 2005 @ 4:49pm
  96. Aaron,
    For the record, I never trashed you. Your post is great. And I only used respectful medical terms that were deleted nevertheless, not crass street jargon. Oh, my poems were on topic, but they got deleted too. And while I participated in a thread jack (sorry), I dropped out w/ the DKL-Kurt WofW stuff (comment #72).

    Steve EM — June 30, 2005 @ 4:49pm
  97. Ned,

    I think this whole blog is a satire: Aaron the righteously uneducated conservative; Miranda the babelicious feminist with a troglodyte, swing shift working husband who buys an X Box with the kid’s school clothes; Greg the curious non-member on the make; Septimus maximus, the lonely guy in the country with the shadowy picture…

    I think this blog is really the guys from the Sugarbeet putting everyone on. But it is entertaining…

    Kent — June 30, 2005 @ 4:50pm
  98. DKL, when you’re not being offensive, you use blogs as your own personal platform to parade your pedantry. It’s more tiresome than words can say.

    Miranda PJ — June 30, 2005 @ 5:11pm
  99. Kent, don’t forget Jenn, the perfectly happy singleton! Man, what do I have to do to get some recognition! :)

    Jenn — June 30, 2005 @ 5:19pm
  100. Lurch, I’ve spoken to Aaron about it offline, where he is more charming and less heavy handed than he sometimes comes accross here. After talking with him, I’ve decided the following: It is not offensive to say that men are biologically driven to have sex less discriminately than women. Beliefs such as Aaron’s about polygamy are wrong and offensive, but not threatening enough to our society or our rights to merit much contention.

    Miranda PJ — June 30, 2005 @ 5:27pm
  101. So Kurt,

    What do I have to do to be a co-blogger at Mormon Open Forum? E-mail me.

    Steve EM — June 30, 2005 @ 5:30pm
  102. I was totally serious when I said I thought Aaron was a patsy - but it has nothing to do with sexual orientation. I meant patsy like Lee Harvey Oswald. Y’know (or maybe you don’t), the guy who is there to be blamed, ridiculed and set up.

    If this isn’t satire, then I don’t know what to say. Has anybody even used the term ‘frigid’ since 1960?

    Laura — June 30, 2005 @ 5:56pm
  103. Well I have, Laura. But that’s kind of beside the point.

    DKL — June 30, 2005 @ 6:15pm
  104. Jeffrey. Way back at the beginning comments. It is a mistake to think being one flesh and multiplying and replenshing the earth are different commandments. In the economy of God these commandments fit together. Like a plug and socket. And were never intended to be seperated.

    It sounds like you imagine Adam and Eve were becoming one flesh in the garden before the Fall. But that it didn’t lead to procreation. How prepostrous. Procreation and becoming one flesh were both not possible before the fall. Because they were naive as children. Adam and Eve did not even know they were naked until Satan told them.

    Aaron B. Cox — June 30, 2005 @ 6:23pm
  105. I believe the current term is orgasmically challenged , but that isn’t really a substitute for frigid cause some gals enjoy sex w/o orgasm. The frigid gal just don’t like it. Never been w/ a frigid gal, though. So the whole thing is probably a myth.

    Steve EM — June 30, 2005 @ 6:26pm
  106. Reader. At comment #5. I love you too. If I sounded harsh, remember whom I loveth I chasteneth.

    Your mention of the Hardee’s thickburger is inspired and a good related example. Because of the recent pornographic Hardee’s commercials with Paris Hilton.

    I have pondered and prayed about your statement about a hundred suns. But I am left with a stupor of thought. From which I understand it is as meaningless as the jibberish of foreign tongues.

    Aaron B. Cox — June 30, 2005 @ 6:34pm
  107. Yeah, but Steve (FSF), I think that the question for you is whether you have been with a frigid guy.

    DKL — June 30, 2005 @ 6:37pm
  108. DKL,
    I turn the other cheek. G-d bless.

    Steve EM — June 30, 2005 @ 6:58pm
  109. Now the Aaron’s back I will try another Ode to Onan:

    In days of old,
    when knights were bold,
    before condoms were invented,
    he pulled his pole
    from the hole,
    and we hope he died contented.

    Steve EM — June 30, 2005 @ 7:52pm
  110. I agree with Kent. This site is a fraud. Whoever is playing Aaron Cox seems to have tired of the act and isn’t even bothering to maintain plausibility in the character today. Or maybe the fun is to see how far he can escalate the character. There are six names associated with this site and BYU. Only one of the six comes up on the BYU alumni directory. In keeping with the fun, the one that does appear is Eric Jones, Ph.D. in marriage and family therapy.

    John Mansfield — June 30, 2005 @ 9:01pm
  111. Has anyone listened to the Phil Hendrie Show? I hear it is an excellently done example of the kind of show being done on Banner of Heaven.

    John Mansfield — June 30, 2005 @ 9:37pm
  112. John (110), I think you’re right. And Aaron has committed the Mormon corollary to Godwin’s Law by comparing himself to Jesus. (see comment 92). Perhaps we could call it Cox’s Corollary.

    Justin H — June 30, 2005 @ 9:42pm
  113. John, Phil Hendrie looks like a riot. I’m going to have to find him on the radio. I’ve been considering starting a blog of my own called “Nightmares of Eminent Mormons,” and I’d have 3 or 4 characters that I’d post as with names like Evalynn Handtowel, Baxter P. Bentley, and Christian Armaund Hammermeyer. It would be pretty obviously a ruse, but it would be fun. I just don’t have the time.

    At any rate, I remember your saying you thought the site was a hoax earlier, but I thought you were joking. Is your hypothesis that a family therapist named Eric Jones is behind this? Aaron I believe is posturing. His posts have an air of sensationalism to them. But I think it’s pretty odd to say that the entire site is a farce. I tend to post to only one blog at a time, and lately I’ve found this place to be way more interesting than M* or BCC (and T&S, of course, is out of the question, since they banned me). The content here is pretty darned good, and it seems to me that whoever put it together would want to be recognized for it. Phil Hendrie takes credit for his ruse, right? Also, it seems to me that if this were a hoax, it would be funnier. What exactly makes you think that these guys aren’t real?

    I’m not convinced by your alumni directory search. If these guys aren’t in the BYU alumni directory then they probably don’t get called all the time for handouts, and I say, “Good for them” (believe it or not, BYU threw me out and I still get calls for handouts). Wabash College (my alma mater) graduates only about 150 men per year, and their alumni directory is like swiss cheese. There’s no way BYU’s is very thorough. And can’t you opt to have your information excluded for privacy reasons?

    DKL — June 30, 2005 @ 11:36pm
  114. DKL, I don’t think Dr. Eric Jones is behind this site; I think that name is common enough that even being made up it had a match in the directory. There are two Eric Jones in the directory and a few Erica Jones. It is possible that some of the Bannerites would just be hiding out from donation requests, but all of them? I tried looking up a couple dozen people who had attended BYU and only a couple of them didn’t come up. As you say, even you are listed.

    The first indication of a hoax was the site’s name. Who, two years post Krakauer, would use the title Banner of Heaven for anything Mormon? Second was the over the top Aaron B. Cox persona, which kept building. Third was the post complaining about paper, of all the mundane things one could come up with, which introduced one character’s marital strife bit by bit. Most of the things written by the Miranda Park Jones persona have been about as wacky as those from Aaron B. Cox, but her style has been closer to that of a familar type in the bloggernacle. Fourth has been SeptimusH, the inactive member who takes hiding out from the Church as far as it can go. He blogs, but doesn’t have a phone. His only human contact revolves around dead cows. Fifth, what circumstances could have brought Aaron, Miranda and Septimus together to start a blog?

    Greg Fox hasn’t written anything questionable so far. I figure that maintaining the personas of three psychos turned out to be work enough, but you can see where they were going with Greg. He was supposed to be the annoying outsider, like Data on Star Trek, who asks stupid questions. For a while I wondered if the characters in the middle were the creation of the quiet, rational book-end figures, Mari and Jenn. Then Jenn wrote on the manly appeal of Henry B. Eyring. That’s when I looked them all up in the alumni directory.

    John Mansfield — July 1, 2005 @ 6:37am
  115. Add to this the fact that Septimus is now apparently the victim of an alien abduction (explaining all the dead cows) and you have got yourself a person with an awful lot of time on their hands (especially considering the amount that Miranda PJ and Septimus post elsewhere).

    John C. — July 1, 2005 @ 7:21am
  116. Does the B stand for big?

    Steve EM — July 1, 2005 @ 7:34am
  117. B stands for Bennion. And here is is a more ample piece on Phil Hendrie from the New York Times Magazine, Talk-to-Yourself Radio. This is where I heard of him, but I figured the article would be in the paid archive. Fortunately, it’s not.

    John Mansfield — July 1, 2005 @ 9:22am
  118. John M, brilliant exegesis, especially the comparison with Hendrie. I agree, what could have brought this disparate group of people together to start blogging? Plus, the LDS blog world is surprisingly insular, people have shared classes, wards, relatives, careers. Does anyone outside of the BoH bloggers have any connection with them? And the Gmail addresses, did they just decide to go out and get matching addresses? Why not use their existing email? Usually group bloggers have started out with personal blogs, any hint that is the case with the BoH group? And finally, those bio pics. They have the same professional casualness that the man in the ward photos have on the Sugarbeet.

    This place is a put on, but like I said, it’s entertaining.

    Kent — July 1, 2005 @ 9:22am
  119. Sorry, bad linking. Trying again.

    June 17, 2005 Edition of New York Times Magazine

    John Mansfield — July 1, 2005 @ 9:24am
  120. Kent, I’ve met Jenn, if it helps. She lives in Manhattan.

    Steve Evans — July 1, 2005 @ 9:53am
  121. I checked all the singles ward membership directories in the Manhattan stake — no Jenn Mailer. Who knows where she’s lurking. Maybe she’s the doppelganger of Aaron Cox?

    Bill — July 1, 2005 @ 9:57am
  122. Just saw that last post. Maybe Steve will introduce me.

    Bill — July 1, 2005 @ 9:58am
  123. Mailer’s not her real last name. She’s changed it and her friends’ names for the blog.

    Steve Evans — July 1, 2005 @ 9:59am
  124. Is that really her photo, Steve?

    DKL — July 1, 2005 @ 10:07am
  125. DKL - the photo is as accurate of her as Matt Evans’ photo is of him on T&S. She is surprisingly tall.

    Steve Evans — July 1, 2005 @ 10:13am
  126. Steve, your personal witness is a point in favor of some reality here but your follow up comment about the made up last name takes some of the shine off it.

    Again, I’m not outraged, I’m amused. It’s taken a lot of work to build BoH and with Septimus’ alien abduction and Jenn’s hankering for Henry upping the ante it appears we’re headed for some kind of climax, if I can use that word with a straight face on a blog that has talked so much about relieving sexual tension…

    Kent — July 1, 2005 @ 10:27am
  127. If you want a faux Mormon blog try this one, Whoever is doing it is putting a lot of time into it, as there are three other blogs that connect with this one, so it’s a pretty elaborate system. I gotta give it to her/him though, some of the posts are pretty funny.

    Eric Russell — July 1, 2005 @ 10:55am
  128. Aaron (way back in #104)

    The scriptures say that “becoming one” was part of the pre-fall existence, not me. If you want to call the scriptures “preposterous” that’s fine by me, but I think such a statement works more against you position than mine.

    I don’t think that the two aspects can really be separated. Our sexuality obviously involves more than simple procreation, however that is the point I was really trying to drive home. There is a reason why human females, unlike other mammal females, do not advertise when they are in heat and are ready for procreation. This makes the chances of a single act of sexual relations resulting in procreation relatively low and naturally steers sexual relations more towards an emotional relationship than a merely procreative one. Of course this also help establish a solid family in which to raise offspring, but the emotional benefits between a married husband and wife engaging in recreational sex should not be underestimated at all.

    Sexual relations within married, even with birth control and the like, are very healthy for the married couple. I would also be hestitant to label all solitary “seed spilling” naturally bad as well. (This is not to say that unrestricted, solitary seed spilling is good by any definition.)

    This is all I was trying to say, that the emotional aspect of sex is just as important, if not more so, as the procreative aspect.

    Jeffrey Giliam — July 1, 2005 @ 11:49am
  129. J. Stapley. Sorry. Still stuck way back near the beginning of this thread working through comments. What gives you any idea my wife does not experience a fulness of joy in our relations. I can assure you its fine. How do you know you may ask. Well in case you don’t know its pretty obvious when it arrives. Suffice it to say, it doesn’t take a sophistecated intellectual or book learning to recognize.

    Aaron B. Cox — July 2, 2005 @ 8:24pm
  130. What I like is the counsel not to spill seed by my own doing. Her personal interpretation of the counsel resulted in a sense of responsibility for being with me on a much more regular basis than she would have been had that counsel not been given. Ahhhhh, the self-serving fruits of the “inspired” male hierarchy that exists in the church…

    Lurch — July 3, 2005 @ 2:22pm
  131. Uhh, Aaron and Lurch? That’s way more than we needed to know, thanks.

    While we’re on the subject of your wife, Aaron, I’d love to hear her feelings about your polygamy obsession. I think you should invite her to do a guest post here.

    NFlanders — July 4, 2005 @ 2:01am
  132. Aaron’s wife, Marie, isn’t allowed to use the computer. He’s afraid she read alternative opinions and stop following his “divine counsel” thus destroying the patriarchal order in His Home.

    Lurch — July 4, 2005 @ 3:08am
  133. Aaron’s wife, Marie, isn’t allowed to use the computer. He’s afraid she’ll read alternative opinions and stop following his “divine counsel” thus destroying the patriarchal order in His Home.

    Lurch — July 4, 2005 @ 3:09am
  134. That said, most people interpret the story as Onan was punished for not living up to his obligation to impregnate his brother’s widow he just married (an ancient custom/obligation not followed today.),

    Thought what I would note is that he was to raise up seed so his brother’s wife’s children would inherit and not Onan’s children. By refusing his duty, he was converting his brother’s (and the brother’s wife)’s property to himself.

    Stephen M (Ethesis) — July 17, 2005 @ 8:51pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Comments are closed for this post.

Best Viewed with
Firefox: Safer, Faster, Better
Generated in 0.192 seconds (64 queries) | Powered by WordPress