• Announcements

    • Nemesis

      Contact Us Broken   09/27/2016

      Users, It has come to our attention that the contact us feature on the site is broken.  Please do not use this feature to contact board admins.  Please go through normal channels.  If you are ignored there then assume your request was denied. Also if you try to email us that email address is pretty much ignored.  Also don't contact us to complain, ask for favors, donations, or any other thing that you may think would annoy us.  Nemesis


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


BlueDreams last won the day on November 19 2016

BlueDreams had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,640 Excellent

About BlueDreams

  • Rank
    If only there was blue cocoa too
  • Birthday 05/17/1988

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Under the mountains
  • Interests
    People, art, politics, diet, social issues, living and breathing, etc

Recent Profile Visitors

1,811 profile views
  1. I didn't say it wasn't a national issue. I said it was decentralized in power structures. There's not one leader moving it forward and one group organizer doesn't necessarily represent another. But in all of this, including your questions, I would really suggest reading into this more. It's fairly obvious to me that the knowledge you have about this is a) one-sided and b) minimal. To understand the reasons for what they're doing, it's important to look at the other side as well as basic stats. I've done that before....including with certain extreme positions. Hearing "reports" (often closer in this case to hearsay and anecdotal evidence) from people who are extremely biased towards them doesn't help. With luv, BD
  2. I've been thinking about it and basically feel the same. I think that their are political positions and ideological groups that can run so antithetical to the purpose of the church that it would need to. A person who supports the oppression of another people would not work well in a church that proclaim all are God's children and are meant to be equal. Any group supporting or promoting violent action as a means to disrupt would also be very circumspect. I think most people, however wonky their political ideologies, would be fine....though I would be concerned if any began spouting their beliefs in a way that went beyond actual Church teachings. For example if a person was teaching a lesson on self-reliance and then went on a tangent about welfare and how they see it as anti-thetical to self-reliance and began a tirade on welfare queens. Or (on the other end of the political spectrum....to be fair ) if someone was teaching a lesson about being children of God and used that as a springboard as to why this means we should support gay marriage. Or if someone taught the WoW and insisted this is why we need a tax on Sodas and treat sugar like tobacco. Though I wouldn't necessarily have any of them leave the church, I would set them aside and give a warning about going beyond the mark in teaching. That you're welcome to your opinions but as a teacher, bishop, RS Pres or whatever else, using the platform to promote one's pet stance isn't ok....particularly when said stance isn't actually taught by the church manuals anywhere. If they persist than they may need to lose the calling. With luv, BD
  3. Cop related deaths and racial bias/stats: https://m.phys.org/news/2017-02-analysis-uncovers-racial-bias-fatal.html kkk violence: http://archive.adl.org/learn/ext_us/kkk/crime.html?xpicked=4&item=kkk Part of the reduction is also because the KKK numbers in general are flagging for other white nationalist, skinhead, and other pro-white or anti-government groups...not an actual change in how they view and act (see last few pages): https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/Ku-Klux-Klan-A-History-of-Racism.pdf article on BLM movement and purpose: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/07/11/black-lives-matter-what-what-stands/86963292/ On the last I can understand why someone would get this impression if it focuses in more conservative blogs. But these generally do not focus on the actual movement...which is a loosely affiliated groups/chapters that are working for an overarching purpose. Because of that, there are likely to be a couple of nuts in the bunch. Just like any minimally regulated movement. What I saw with conservative blogs was focusing on 1 specific insident where someone said or did something stupid and then over-generalizing it to "mean" something about the movement itself. That doesn't work. You're currently giving assertions that are loosely connected and poorly backed. BLM goes well beyond Brown. This indicates to me that you know very little about both the BLM and the KKK or the contexts that either run in. With luv, BD
  4. No, it's not. The DoJ found just that, though not specific to the Brown case. From the same site: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-findings-two-civil-rights-investigations-ferguson-missouri It's not a falsehood. Systematic racism is still a thing. Ferguson isn't a fluke: https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2017/01/13/feds-release-scathing-report-chicago-police/nUSspFYZ1Ee8qxiCtxooAN/story.html https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-findings-investigation-chicago-police-department https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-findings-investigation-baltimore-police-department But either way, comparing them to the KKK, an arguably domestic terrorist group, is insane. Particularly with the ONE point of evidence for violence was a fringe nut who didn't have real association with BLM and runs counter to their actual message and movement v. systematic violence and terrorizing by KKK members which was a major part of their organization's existence. With luv, BD
  5. I know this was to Calm, but I find myself thinking about it a lot and wanted to just share my opinion. I can deeply understand that, because I've felt the same. I think the construct of oneness and individuality have both been hijacked a little in our modern western culture. Oneness is viewed more as conformity while. Traditionally the ideal of the Trinity placed a divine oneness in terms that left to minimal distinctions beyond specific role played and in certain traditions led to a God without passions like man. God, in this sense, moves to a state that is near intangible to us. Terms that follow such were also hijacked throughout history and today. Submission is often closer to subjugation and oppression. Yielding in terms of acquiescing. Etc. Meanwhile individuality is extolled in ultimate expressions of freedom, authenticity, and truth. This, particularly earlier in life and with my personality, made me feel pretty strongly in favor of one over the other. To say I didn't feel warm and fuzzy about the ideas of oneness was an understatement. I genuinely was repulsed by the idea and surrounding terms. But I think the oneness, yielding, submitting, etc actually described in scripture isn't what it's come to mean to us now. I think of the contrast between 2 metaphors that are repeated a few times in differing ways but both have to do with following God. I'll point to 2 that have to do with fire and light Isaiah 50:11 Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks: walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled. This shall ye have of mine hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow. The imagery gives of something short lived. Light in general is a symbol in scripture that is positive, but this is used to describe something that can't be maintained. Meanwhile the role of God is describe as "a refiner's fire and like fuller's soap" (Malachi 3 and 3 Nephi 24). The act to purify does remove things from us, but it's not at the loss of self but and allowance of our truest selves to come through. Light and fire are also used to describe these with having the glory of the Sun. In following ones one course, our individuality and unique attributes are limited and short lived. In Christ they become more intense, more powerful, and eventually eternal. Personally, I haven't found a loss of individuality - as in my truest greatest form of BD - but an increase. With luv, BD
  6. No, you can't. No outside reading material are allowed in the celestial room. You can read the scriptures provided. But I also sense that differing temples reinforce the rule differently. And that changed in the temple I worked in the longest over the years. It used to be that you couldn't have them out in the celestial room and during ordinances, but you were fine outside the celestial room. Then it became more general to the entire temple. This is probably one rule that I have a tendency to break, just less obviously and never in the celestial room. Like I said, I have a stubborn streak and it runs deep. I wouldn't necessarily expect it to be higher on your list. It's nothing bad. I'm a minority, so I notice more...it's not something that has a prominent place in our overall society, in specific areas of the church, and in most of the progressive/NOM/faith transitioning voices that I've ever heard...honestly in the last category, these often have similar backgrounds particularly in the US. It's something that's missing a lot in a variety of dialogues. But it is also the only thing that I can actually say was a let down/"hurt" for me in the temple when the new videos were brought in. I didn't realize I had this hope bubbling that then got dashed when out of 3 new videos, only one actor in the background was possibly a minority (the sort that it's hard to tell for sure). I put "hurt" in quotation marks because it feels a little strong. On my list of hurtful experiences in my life, this runs pretty low. A lot of racial things run on low... it's the accumulation of all these lower hurts that makes them more poignant. I don't doubt your sincerity, I just honestly don't see it that way. It probably doesn't help my capacity to perspective take when one of my most poignant spiritual experiences with Jesus happened last week....in the temple, on cleaning duty, while waiting quietly and reading an Isaiah passage. The other most poignant one was while watching a baptism. Both around symbols and ordinances or in the cleaning, serving in the house of the Lord. Usually my capacity to jump into another's point is a little more salient. But it's just not something i'm following you on at all. And though there is much rich symbolism in other faith traditions. Having a specific symbol in and of itself doesn't necessitate something richer or deeper. I go to midnight mass most Christmases. It's chalk full of Christ/trinity symbols during communion, their order of events, etc. But it doesn't necessarily draw me closer just because I can see some of the intricate symbolic referencing a happening. Honestly I go for the music and the opportunity to sing praises on Christmas. With the underlined I already see all of that in some of the covenants we make and the symbolism of being made alive in Christ. As well as our very first ordinance of baptism....which is also repeated again and again in the temple. And initiatory for that matter. The second part to me seems like basically the entire endowment ceremony. It's not really about the afterlife, but this one. And that as we partake in the Atonement and Christ's Gospel order we are prepared to receive all that He is and all that God has/desires us to become. And if Christ is focused on this life, then it make sense to me to focused on what is expected of us in THIS life. I love learning about the ministry of Jesus. But I'm not going to lie that's one of the things I'm not a big fan of from what I see in some other christian denominations when I've attended. They tend to focus on a small part of a large and complicated tapestry of Scripture. Not only is it bible-only in many, it can new testament mostly. The temple isn't meant to focus on one chunk of all the works of God but to bring all things in one with Christ as the central/moving figure. Because of it, I find the words, ordinances, covenants, and symbols as without a specific time or place but a continuation of all the Works of God, the Purposes of Christ, and the great patterns of mankind that resonate and ripple throughout all scripture. Because of that I find Christ, through these temple ordinances, in all things, all scripture, and echoed again throughout my own life. It's not only a change. It feels a little limiting to me in some ways. And already in there in our traditions and symbols in others. With luv, BD *Ironic side note, today in between times I was writing this I had another couple come in who were in dire straits the last time I talked to them, decided to make a goal together to attend the temple together weekly, and it is giving them far more emotional space than I've ever seen them have. I was prepping for some emotionally heavy war like sessions only to find that God and the structure of the temple (and one temple specifically) had done half my ground work.
  7. Probably, which is why adam and/or eve as the minorities would be a safe bet without it necessarily "saying something" negative about a specific race. Since the default race has been white having a white satan in a mixed cast where adam/eve are minorities wouldn't mean anything. Of course you could just cast Satan and Heavenly father as the same minority race and that would also nullify the possible meaning. But in general, I would just go for anything that nudges the envelope with the least amount of discomfort for folks that do place heavy assumptions on the race of varying religious figures. And some still do. I figure some discomfort will ensue, but I would rather that be a gentle nudge than an outright push. And don't worry, I've been trying really hard not to make political analogies. Doesn't help that's my break-time reading . It always takes a minute to reorient when I go to a family ward again! Sundays at a singles ward definitely fits the bill of quiet . You can hear the tap tap tap of heels everytime someone enters. That sort of quiet. Living the dream! With luv, BD
  8. Happy anniversary! Glad you've been here! I couldn't remember when I joined, but apparently I past my 13th anniversary in December. I'd feel old....but I joined when I was 15.
  9. Oops I think I responded to part of this in Hope's response. Oh well. Repeating a little. Added emphasis does not equal graven image. I have met very very few people who could be described as having the temple be their "everything"....maybe your weird uni-garment guy ... In which case they are surely "missing the mark." Still, there are two places I find God the most: Hiking alone and temples. More consistently in temples, and that's saying a lot. I love hikes alone. I found myself wondering if you heard me talk about the temple, it wouldn't feel like the temple has become an "idol." At the same time I think this is another moment of missing each other's point a little. I wasn't talking about a "temple focused model" because I don't feel like we have a "temple focused model" to begin with Temples are absolutely important, but it's not for the buildings themselves but the fundamental work and blessings and age-old edicts that are Christ-laden. The buildings are just a very rich tapestry to lay the symbols in and throughout. We have a focus on furthering the Work of Christ...declaring His gospel and sharing in His nature. And, according to modern scripture and NT bases, this is an extremely important part of His work that He himself established. It should also be pointed out that basically the only time he really got pissed in the scriptures was in behaviors that were deemed desecrating temple-based ceremonies (the money-changers). Still, It's not the sole focus nor should it ever become such. Even the temple have limits to try and make sure that doesn't happen (it's closed monday evenings, sundays, and for stake/general conferences). My point is, just because something feels like it's over-emphasized doesn't mean that it necessarily is. Dead horse beaten, I'll leave it as is. With luv, BD
  10. Focusing on the principle of reevaluation isn't enough, IMO, because it's asserting a value to something intangible in competition for something that is already tangibly valued. Without specifics there's no room for growth. It also puts people on the defensive. For example, I can name off the top of my head 3-4 things that I would change in the temple.... some small and some larger. I haven't shared because the principle you've been attesting have been so broad with little indication of acknowledging the positive aspects of the temple. Having a core basis of what is positive allows for some sense of commonality. It also gives a sense of what ground in which to build further on. Plus, some of the initial posts were off-putting to assume that just because one adheres and loves temple worship that one can't then see areas of potential improvement. Not a big fan of boxes and being placed in them. I've also disagreed with the assertion that we all should reevaluate the value of the temple. The temple, even in its imperfect form is priceless and has been priceless. The basis of temple worship is found in every book of scripture and is a central part to worship in Christ. It's like suggesting we should all reevaluate the constructs of marriage and whether one should ever marry to someone who's been happily married for 20+ years. They're not going to pay it much attention because it's fundamentally changed and bettered their lives and is a backbone to social order, just because some have found marriage inadequate or hurtful does not negate the value of the institution. In full disclosure here are 2 practical and 1 bigger thing I wouldn't mind seeing changed: 1. Allowing patriarchal blessings to be read in there. That may be a more temple-to-temple policy, but it's been enforced based off of the wording in the guidelines. I feel that it can help many who go there to contemplate their own concerns in their day-to-day and seeking Spiritual guidance for their lives. 2. Videos with adam and/or eve who are some form of visual minorities....if not other key actors. The bigger thing: an expansion in understanding of women's power and roles and clarification as their roles as queens and priestesses. Particularly through Eve's depiction. Having lived and breathed the female ordinances for this long, I don't necessarily find them inherently sexist. I do find them like an unfinished or not fully heard story. It's not surprising to me as to why, but I feel it's still an inevitable part of the restoration. I would not be presumptuous enough to say what that should or shouldn't entail. To your underlined point, I think the picking apart is 2 fold. For one, people have different visions for their "ideal experience." For another, it assumes that many of us haven't ever re-evaluated the worth of temple worship and service or why we do what we do in the temple. Re-evaluation doesn't lead us to the same conclusions. My personal evaluations and re-evaluations have never led me to the assertions or ideals you're suggesting we move with. Some things absolutely boggle me. Like removing masonic language or focusing "more" on Jesus. To me the actions and symbols all not only point to Jesus but represent a movement of taking Him personally onto our very being. They symbolize a deep continuing binding and change in being that are to effect our personal disposition, attitudes, personal relationships, and social structures. So they literally are the opposite conclusions that I've come to as I evaluate, memorize, and take part in the ordinances. And let me assure you one of the main reasons I became a temple worker in the first place was because I wanted to be absolutely familiar with the ins and outs of the temple. I wanted a deeper knowledge. On my phone app for my gospel library I have 6 "tags" in it that are specifically about temple language and actions that tie in. My evaluation, minus the one major point I've pointed out already has made me reticent to change most of it up. Some of your suggestions do not fly for me, not because I want to pick them apart but because they don't fit what I've personally deduced or seen about the temple (point one entirely). The one that I think could be worked to better understand is point 2. I've had perfunctory recommend interviews and didn't think much of it as a teen. But I've also had very spiritual ones. Ones where the Stake president and/or bishop worked hard to assure I knew the purpose of the interview. It wasn't an interview really with them, they just happened to be saying the words, but one between me and the Lord through the Spirit. I would like people to feel that more. #3 I honestly don't follow. For what I mentioned earlier, but really just about all of it I don't get. It doesn't resonate at all with my experience so I don't get it. With luv, BD
  11. I've been mostly a silent observer to this conversation but I have a question that's been bothering me as you've posted. You keep talking about the potential for "new" traditions or drastic change and or reduction in emphasis of the temple for something better. My question is what, in your mind is this "better" model? It seems shortsighted to me to criticize a current system without really giving a constructive alternative to match up and then exceed the current system and meet up to the spiritual experience and growth seen with temple worship. The second is this appeal to objectivity. I see little to assume that somehow yours is more objective. Just because you've lost value in the temple doesn't equal an objective stand point is your new reality. Just as you see pogi ignoring/minimizing the negative or concerning aspects of the tradition, I've viewed you doing the same to the positive. That's hardly objective. with luv, BD
  12. No, I think I still follow you, I just strongly disagree with it. Again, the general definition for pharisaic doesn't denote just having rules but having focusing on rules at the cost of the spirit or greater principles as taught by Christ. Rules....even a lot of them, are not enough to define a pharisaic attitude. They didn't just view it as a legalistic duty, according to the NT it was also a measuring stick for a sense of acceptability, while not only missing Christ but finding his teachings and position as a threat. That is not the attitude I find in the temple. I have the feeling that if Christ came down, said He wanted this or that rule changed...or even parts of the ordinances altered, the church leaders and temple presidency by the vast majority would immediately accept it and also immediately alter course to meet up to expectations. Talking of your example. As I've mentioned, I did say that some do fall into a pharisaic mindset. But that was not your only position. It was whether or not there's correlation between Temple rules and a person's personal pharisaic attitude. So for your example here. This man chooses and promotes a one piece garment as the better garment for "extra spiritual protection." Is this enabled or promoted by the church? No, quite the opposite. The church gives all sorts of garment fabrics and a number of cuts trying to have a wider range for people's comfort and needs. What the church is doing goes absolutely against what this man is saying. There isn't even a scripture to back this up for him. He's made his preference somehow a spiritual principle. The rules in and of themselves in the temple are not in someway seen as permanent, extra special, or absolutes. In the time I've worked there I have seen rules change. Most often to accommodate the comfort of the patrons, maintain the (literal...not spiritual) cleanliness of the temple, etc. That's not a super long time either....just under 4 years. And from temple to temple they vary. For example a worker who had moved into our district was surprised how often we in our temple would sit in our posts. In the temple she'd come from it was expected they stand at all times in similar posts. The provo temple never has spanish scriptures on hand while the Bountiful, draper, etc, definitely do. Though there are usually specific reasons given and they may have principles tied in to the gospel (Many are just for practical order or previous concerns) no one thinks that the policies themselves are somehow going to give an extra spiritual boost, make us more holy, or anything of that sort. We know they can change and do. And we are specifically and repeatedly told which is more important in regards to rule-following or spirit. The Spirit. With luv, BD
  13. 1 - You're still a temple worker, so that would make sense that both would apply. There are exceptions, but they are usually people who are not temple workers but are apart of temple maintenance/security. Ie. People not directly tied to performing the ordinances. 2 - Of course there were good pharisees. An easy example is Nicodemus. But you are talking about a definition that isn't about who the original peoples were, but a common vernacular term. In which, the temple doesn't fit. As Nehor mentioned, their teachings were often looking "beyond the mark" and following rules as a measure of holiness. Though I'm sure there is some pretentious temple worker who thinks they're better than or more on the "straight and narrow" because they follow rules in the temple, most don't. Nor would they. And the general push and focus for temple workers is not about rules but about patrons and doing the work of the Lord with reverence to said ordinances. You can bend and stretch and re-imagine the pharisees to have more diverse thoughts and tones. But you can't take a specific term and re-stretch/define it in a way so that it fits ones current criticism. I am not saying that there aren't very specific and sometimes strict rules in the temple. There are. Some of which I disagree with. My point of divergence is that that, In and of itself, is not enough to be pharisaic. The key premise to the definition "pharisaic" is not only missing but actively pushed against by instructions to the temple workers. 3 - Of course not. And they've changed up, from what I understand, over the years. The most recent change is about initiatory dress. That doesn't mean that these things shouldn't be worked to be properly observed. And even then, doing so is not nearly as strict as you may think. Before or after the veil. The veil ordinance itself is done in a specific order and manner. But even there, unless they get it completely wrong, workers are told not to mess with it or over-correct the patron. Similar things happen with all ordinances, such as baptism and sacrament. Is the exactness, absolutely necessary? I doubt it. But order and maintenance of these ordinances are, IMO. Particularly with scriptures about being a "House of order" in our D&C. Again, you can do this without being pharisaic about it. And for the most part I think the church and particularly the order in the temple works very hard to not cross that line. With luv, BD
  14. No they're not. We're also told to try really really hard not to overtake the patron experience with rules. So for example, if there's a rule that we know isn't being followed we're told to discreetly remind them in a way that's not pushy or an embarassment to them. If they push back we're told to let it be. If they were really pharisaic the rules would outweigh the comfort of the patron. It is literally the opposite. We are definitely goal driven, but the goals aren't to maintain temple order, but to help bring the patrons toward Christ and to help them have the most positive experience that they can. We're specifically taught to move by the spirit, particularly in special circumstances to allow patrons who are sacrificing their time and often comfort in the case of the aged or infirm to be there. The rules are quite specific. And they're more rigid for workers than they are for patrons. But honestly I wouldn't judge it unless you've been a worker yourself. I'm quite anti-authority in my day-to-day. I'm the sort that if you tell me to do something I push back, particularly to rules that feel arbitrary. A perfect example of that was on my mission when a leader told me I need to kneel in prayer for companionship study. She told me Christ prayed kneeling. I retorted that Christ also prayed on a cross and I'm not about to do that, so why kneel? That's my personality to a tee. I would be the first to admit if the rules were Pharisaical. Sometimes, certain rules I disagree with. But to call them pharisaic would entail a number of qualities in temple work that just aren't there. Here is the definition to being Pharisaic according to an online dictionary: "practicing or advocating strict observance of external forms and ceremonies of religion or conduct without regard to thespirit; self-righteous; hypocritical." In bold is the missing key aspect. Whenever I have been a temple worker the response is always the same. Here's the rules, but don't put too much focus on them for patrons so as to not overpower the spirit, make them uncomfortable, etc. The temple is to bring you to God through Christ. Not to the Rule book. And the temples I've been to work dang hard to do so. It's also the most recent push from higher up as well to help avoid such. With luv, BD
  15. Which is probably why temple workers (at least in the temples I served in) were also asked not to wear strong smelling perfumes.