We weren’t so naive as to have thought that our book “It’s Not About the Sex” My Ass wouldn’t raise a hackle or two. Indeed, some mainstream Mormons have objected to our allusions to Mormon history, doctrine and practices.
Giving offense is not and never has been our goal. The allusions are there to provide context, in the which we strove for accuracy. We made clear that extant polygamist cults are not part of the mainstream Mormon Church, ensured that historical anecdotes were well-documented (we even verified them with Mormon-friendly sources), portrayed doctrines and practices accurately, and grounded our observations—even the snarky ones—in logic and reason.
Notwithstanding, some cry foul. Here are the complaints we hear most often, along with our replies:
Complaint: “You shouldn’t talk about that because it’s sacred to us.”
We reply: If “sacred to us” meant “shouldn’t be discussed by anyone,” the Catholic Church would have jailed Galileo for challenging its sacred notion of an earth-centric system. Oh, wait, they did. You probably know that Galileo turned out to be right and the scared doctrine turned out to be wrong. So we have no sympathy for requests not to discuss what someone may hold sacred.
Complaint: “You have gone too far.”
We reply: Can someone please tell us what that means?
Complaint: “Mormon practices out of context give newcomers the wrong impression about us.”
We reply: If it’s true that we distinguish splinter groups from the mainstream church, accurately report history, doctrine and practices, and base our observations on logic and reason … it seems to us that the only impression a reader can get is the right one.
Giving offense is not and never has been our goal. The allusions are there to provide context, in the which we strove for accuracy. We made clear that extant polygamist cults are not part of the mainstream Mormon Church, ensured that historical anecdotes were well-documented (we even verified them with Mormon-friendly sources), portrayed doctrines and practices accurately, and grounded our observations—even the snarky ones—in logic and reason.
Notwithstanding, some cry foul. Here are the complaints we hear most often, along with our replies:
Complaint: “You shouldn’t talk about that because it’s sacred to us.”
We reply: If “sacred to us” meant “shouldn’t be discussed by anyone,” the Catholic Church would have jailed Galileo for challenging its sacred notion of an earth-centric system. Oh, wait, they did. You probably know that Galileo turned out to be right and the scared doctrine turned out to be wrong. So we have no sympathy for requests not to discuss what someone may hold sacred.
Complaint: “You have gone too far.”
We reply: Can someone please tell us what that means?
Complaint: “Mormon practices out of context give newcomers the wrong impression about us.”
We reply: If it’s true that we distinguish splinter groups from the mainstream church, accurately report history, doctrine and practices, and base our observations on logic and reason … it seems to us that the only impression a reader can get is the right one.
RSS Feed