Animals are for the benefit and use of man," for example... well, yeah, I just don't believe that. You state it like it's fact.

I am sorry, was I supposed to not answer from with in LDS theology? That is from scripture and therefore if one holds the beliefs that God exists and that the LDS Church is true then that statement is true. If I wasn't supposed to answer according to LDS theology, which is what I believe, then what system was I supposed to work from?

this is about what is really right and wrong

For me as well. However, you started that sentence by saying it wasn't a logic game. If logic and reason are not to be used in determining what is really right and wrong and divine revelation is out then what are you left with? Are you trying to say you have taken then indefensible but unassailable position of a relativist that also believes logic itself is relative? In which case, you should have let us know this to start out with as any claims of contradiction, if that is what you hold, may as well be saying that 1=1 is a contradiction.

My point: if it doesn't hurt anyone, then it isn't wrong.

And one of my points is that even with this definition most of what you have posted as being fun can and does hurt people and society.

I hope she gets as much joy and beauty and excitement and fun that life has to offer!

There is a scripture that says that "Wickedness never was happiness" but it can give pleasure. It is my position that she will have as much joy and beauty and excitement and fun as she can by making good decisions.

For alcohol, for instance, Wednesday is less likely to remember what she is doing if she is drunk so any fun she is currently having (if in reflection it really was fun) will hold less long term value then if she was not drunk. She would also be more likely to do things that she would regret latter. She is also risking her long term mental and physical healthy by drinking, especially if not "in moderation", as well as the health and safety of others.

there were no horses in America

False statement on so many levels of false. Horses were in the Americas and eventually went extinct. Archeology is not an exact science and just because something is not known now does not mean it will not be known latter. There have been horses found even still so the statement that there were no horses is merely an assumption that because there were no horses when the Europeans came that all horse skeletons found previous to that were either from the prehistoric (as commonly understood, not as defined by archeology) time periods or are otherwise anomalies.

There was no Flood, and no Adam and Eve

Again these statements are based on a lot of assumptions. Myths of the flood exist in almost all cultures so to me it seems arrogant to say it did not exist. Of course archeologist will say it doesn't but they also say that the Mayan ceremonial scepter and head dress were elaborations in the carvings and may not have existed even though similar things are found in dryer areas of mesoamerica and they were made out of wood and feathers. It is the way they work.

And it shouldn't contain spelling errors.

If it had been handed pretranslated from God to a prophet with some guarantee that the typesetters at the printers wouldn't err in placing the type then I would agree. However, it was translated by Joseph reading the plates to a scribe and then that translation being taken to the printers. Therefore, even if Joseph read everything perfectly there was still chances for errors in the scribes and in the printer that Joseph later corrected.

the absence of God is as much a fact as the existence of the Sun

I would have to be an idiot not to be aware of this fact on this site given how much of it I have read. I have stated that I know that God exists and have provided the way that anyone that so wishes can also know that fact. I have also provided other evidence. For me the opposite of that statement is true.

I am aware of many logical arguments for the existence of God but I, personally, do not find them to be convincing without the assumption to start that God may exist making all such arguments to be somewhat circular in nature. Further much of the evidence that I see for a God are used by others, including those on this site, to be evidence that there is not a God which means either I or they are misunderstanding the evidence or it isn't evidence for either position. In either case such evidence should not be used, in my opinion, in any argument over the existence or non-existence of God.

Nobody I care about much is telling me I can't have alcohol or polyamory, and yet I find that my fun does not involve those things. I would appreciate a less normative endorsement of the options you list.

Historians from the time period and Roman records from the time period mention the existence of Jesus with no dispute as to if he really existed. This isn't iron clad evidence that Jesus existed. That is there is iron clad evidence that there were people named Jesus at the time but that doesn't tell you if anything else from the story is true. The historians and Roman records admit that there almost certainly was a Jesus that was crucified. They also provide evidence that the claims made about Jesus, insofar as they touch on Jewish and Roman law and the facts of the trial, are not contradicted. This means there almost certainly was someone (well, at least one) named Jesus that was crucified by the Romans at the request of the the Jewish authorities and that this person claimed to be the Messiah.

Again given that Jesus was a common name, crucifixion was not uncommon, and Jesus in the Bible takes the place of someone else that claimed to be the Messiah then this still isn't saying much. In particular it doesn't say anything about any teachings of said Jesus or anything on the miracles or the resurrection. There is, as far as I know, no non-partisan record of any of those things.