Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6,471 Excellent

About BlueDreams

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

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

3,273 profile views
  1. I’m not sure what is meant by anti-polygamy. I’m personally anti-living it for me as is my husband where one wife was more than he expected. i never ever took that verse as a literal expectation. It’s Isaiah. He’s notorious for symbolic writing. I take this in context with ch 13 the things and people described indicate a corrupt society where its priorities, order, and religion are destroyed or brought low. The “daughters of zion” are left. Since women are often used as symbols of the body of the church or of a nation, I view it as having the people being stripped of their pride, materialism, and false gods...each person with their own form of pride and idols. What’s left are a humbled people wanting to be given the name of one husband to “remove their reproach” ...aka Jesus. In short it shows abject repentance and a returning to god’s path and ways. i don’t see this as a plug for polygamy, let alone an indication that we’ll be polygamous in the millennium Kinda surprised anyone would, considering the way it describes the marriage is definitely not one anyone would describe as a normative marital relationship and the context and the author. with luv, BD
  2. The article is good. I think her mindset shows some of the big shifts that have already taken place in judt the last couple of years with how we think of priesthood. And i’ve been thinking similar things with the restructuring of the church...particularly with the last changes with witnessing. To me it felt very family-oriented as well as a decentralization of things to allow all people in the covenant path to actively be involved in priesthood power and actions. We’ve put so much emphasis on centralized and hierarchical power but i do believe zion as described is one where all people act in God’s name to do His work and represent the church ...not just a few. Beyond that though i’m not sure about her final conclusion. As the hierarchical structure still plays an important role today and is needed for the development of the saints into one people, my gut says that without certain voices in the process, we’ll be handicapped in doing so. They mention women being “gaurdians of morality” and “helpmeet” in the equal partnership sense. I was thinking what’s even meant by morality and who decides it (because I think that’s something that is also somewhat socially derived)? But according to heb 8:10-11 I think it’s generally God’s law and direction. To me it seems limited to have women who hold such important roles not be more active and apart of major decisions for the body of the Church as a whole...which is largely what the hierarchical structure currently does. I don’t think that means same role and same call. But more co-partnership in the direction and said moral guardians. Still, i think this decentralization of power that i see occurring will be positive for women as the home becomes more pertinent and a focus, there will likely be more discussions of priesthood power and authority that women have and in more daily and flexible practices and actions. with luv, BD
  3. I definitely hold issue with your first article. Vandalism can be elevated to a hate crime because the psychological and real-time effect on a minority community can be very different. Someone tags my house with common graffiti, that’s a nuisance and may cause some property damage i want paid. Someone paints a message attacking my mixed family, immigrant spouse, or other forms of hate it effects how i’ll see my neighbors and leave me on edge for weeks. “Smaller” incidents towards friends of mine (being told to go back where you came from, being lambasted by a white lady for having her son with long hair and notably Native American with several racially tinged epithets, friends being told to speak English) near my current place of residence leaves me on edge for a day or two. Do i know that’s likely to not happen. Yes, of course. But it’s still isolating and fear inducing and even moreso when the actions are questioned as “real” or not. i also hold heavy reservation with what you’ve said around sexual assault. But I don’t want to go down the article/research rabbit hole. There’s plenty of research that runs counter to this one person’s research in the WSJ. It caught traction though because of one money-grubbing idiot who wanted a publicity stunt from real concerns and fear that have increased in minority communities. I likely won’t have time to respond as much past this though. So i’m content with the agree to disagree thing that we usually end up on in a few more posts 😋 with luv, BD
  4. It’s still very unlikely. stats on hoaxes of hate crimes usually indicates that they’re rare. Less than 1% sort of rare. a lot of these hoaxes has some immediate benefit to the arbitrator of said hoax. This byu stunt currently doesn’t seem to have any beneficiary, isn’t “hate,” but reads as a self-righteous morality lesson to someone who likely only skimmed or didn’t read the article. See here And here the last one had this stat: “Mr. Riley quotes from a study that claims to have identified 400 fake hate crimes between 2010 and 2017. Even if we accepted that as true, during that same period the FBI reported almost 50,000 hate crimes” with luv, BD
  5. Hate may be too strong of a word. But self-righteous and petty seems accurate. i looked up the articles this was pinned up on (it was on lgbt protections still needed in the US and internationally. Only one part of it even talk about lgbt families). This made the focus then seem at best only marginally related and reactive to bringing up lgbt issues. I was trying to think of a parallel that fit tthis...like talking about legal and or family concerns for interracial couples and posting and old quote from a GA about marrying within the group. But the one that fit it best for me was something I experienced on my mission with a couple of evangelicals when we went door to door. One specifically Welcomed us into his home, brought his young teen/child into the room and proceeded to use us as living examples as to why mormons were biblically wrong. Not wanting to bible-bash, especially in front if his child, we calmly took it for a tiny bit, had a prayer and were kindly saying goodbye. Before we left he made a point to say that he usually would tell someone “god speed!” But since he didn’t believe we were doing to Lords work he wouldn’t do so. It was unnecessary, petty, and self-righteous. We already knew he strongly disagreed with us, we were trying to be kind while sharing our beliefs, but he went out of his way to drive his point just a little further. Nearly everyone at BYU is likely to know the church’s stance on lgbt concerns, some are likely to disagree with them to an extent, and one specifically wrote and article on an adjacent topic of legal protections still needed for lgbt communities. Instead of really engaging in meaningful dialogue or submitting a response about the article, the person tacks a quote and slots in the proc to overstate a point in an inappropriate fashion. It doesn’t actually help or create dialogue. It just make him/her and those who agree with them feel good about themselves by reaffirming their beliefs over another. thus self-righteous and petty with luv, BD
  6. I’m not sure how you mean by this or how i would tell the difference. Nor how this would apply to the vast majority of women in the church. I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone remotely fit that description in wards. Flirty, flattering, attention oriented possibly. “Wearing s*x,” definitely not. So it seems a little besides the point to me since it makes a very small percentage of the population as a whole. I’m not sure about the question either. I kept picturing jospeh and potiphar’s wife. If there was an active effort to seduce, then that action whether successful or not would be tied to it. The problem is figuring out inherent motive. That and whether clothes represents actual influence. For me and my spouse someone’s outfit is someone’s outfit. My husband is far more likely to be seduced by a fancy car than a woman dressed provocatively. Same with me. Clothes are clothes. Which is part of my difficulty conceptualizing your point/question. My gut says we’re responsible for our actions and intent. Many of them will be visible. Several more won’t. Assuming it through clothes or external cues may be more of a concern for the person making the judgment than the person wearing the outfit. with luv, BD
  7. The bold are the parts I don’t agree with. I dress based on the cultural customs for what is expected in an therapy office setting regardless of gender relarions: professional but slightly casual. And that it fits my temple garments. The end. With older couples i veer a little more professional to make up for a young looking face. If the cultural custom for my job was to wear scuba gear, i’d be wearing scuba gear. I do not take into consideration what may “influence men.” I’m tired of placating an impossible standard, so I haven’t thought about that in years. And real-life implications means that the “standard” is perpetually shifting and often individually contrived. Even in the best circumstances, it’s felt invasive and like having your body up for social scrutiny while trying to do mundane tasks. So I’m done trying to fit it. Breastfeeding is also uncomfortable for a number of men (and my mother, for that matter). I don’t care. They can squirm while i feed my baby in the way I’m comfortable with and work through their own cultural baggage surrounding s*xual boundaries and ideas of propriety. “I am glad you acknowledge that, but why does that apply in every areas except how we dress?” (on my cellphone) there’s a fine line between helping, enabling, and inevitably handicapping. A lot of this “helping” the men out to me in real-life implications have veered toward enabling and handicapping. Instead of learning to manage themselves they end up relying on others to keep them in check. They learn that their thoughts are hard to control. They assume their desires are more potent than women’s and thus need extra hands (and greater skirt lengths) to curb it. There’s little/no accountability, little/no self-determination, and an excessive burden on women who are expected to “help them” by maintaining a dress code and manner of conduct not really expected of them (at least not to the extent women are often monitored for the same behavior). It also keeps many women who buy these messages From embracing their own s*xuality and being comfortable with men. Oh, and i believe it’s not all that scriptural, our current interpretation. When I picture teaching my future sons about this, i picture helping normalize the human body and to recognize human autonomy. To respect people in their choice of dress.. and how to generally treat people. I’d teach my daughters the same. That others may expect or assume they “should” look a certain way...but if they feel comfortable and that they are living up to the values we’ve taught them, it doesn’t matter. Helping in this virtue looks the same as helping in others. Teach the principal and let them grow govern themselves. I don’t have a need to monitor them past that. with luv, BD
  8. I haven't followed this thread so some of this has likely been repeated. For me this question isn't hypothetical. I had to confront it head on with one of my first clients who was a p*rn addict. I still remember what I was wearing when the guy hesitantly acknowledged that I was triggering him. It was one of my favorite shirts as it was flattering to my figure (but appropriate enough for work, church, professional gatherings, etc.....I'd worn it at all three. And Modest enough to cover my usual pair of garments). I knew this guy well enough to know that he was trying (and failing often) to rearrange his thoughts and behaviors to cut out porn and it's never flattering to have a married man admit he's being triggered by you when you also work with his spouse. So for a session or two I thought....maybe I'd shift my behaviors to accommodate his problem.* Until I realized that was stupid. Not only stupid, but counterproductive to him actually healing. If he couldn't handle a woman professionally dressed in therapy, how would he manage any woman in the world around him? My absolute biggest problem with this is that it shifts accountability for managing one's s*xuality onto another human being. It becomes someone else's burden to manage some other person's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. With that, it also lays a heavier burden on people who fit cultural ideals of being s*xually attractive. I've fit that category for a very long time. I'm young, thin, and attractive. Which meant I received unwanted attention a good amount of the time. It was actually one of the big perks of being pregnant: no one cared what I looked like. I could walk down the streets of a city and knew that no one would honk at me. No one would look me up and down. No awkward attempts of pick ups in super unwanted places. I was a pregnant lady. And it still works pretty well as a mom. I haven't changed my attire or my looks really. I changed my cultural status as a woman. In our culture (much of the US) Mommy ain't s*xy. It worked better than being a freaking missionary in the drabbest outfits prior to the ward robe changes. I mean I looked like a nun, I swear, and there was still some strange part of humanity who'd hit on me. But as a mom -- NADA. Sometimes men even run away from me or try to maintain eye contact with me AT ALL COSTS when I'm breastfeeding . And it is nice. The thing is, when you do fit the expectations you already are told in one way or another that men find you s*xually appealing and that that's now somehow my business. It's not helpful, comfortable, or uplifting. More often than not, it's intrusive, objectifying, and awkward. Sometimes it's unnerving and frightening. And this is before you get into horrifying justifications for assualt and rape. Lastly it often makes women uncomfortable with their s*xuality. Look up good girl syndrome. A large part of that is being told that we're not supposed to be a turn on and trying to be s*xually appealing is not okay. So normal healthy and good s*xual behaviors by spouses are often view as gross, lustful, or wrong by those who bought these messages. They can't escape them even in the one place we're supposed to be able to. In short, I get we're supposed to help each other. But in my line of profession, helping them was more tied to teaching them how to work past their natural man and stop s*xualizing everyone who moved (within an age range, usually) and learn to treat them as people. Far more effective than asking women to read their minds and decide if what they're wearing would contain other's impulses With luv, BD *Ironically, my attitude about the situation was enough to shift his trigger. Confident women who knew they were attractive was a turn off. Not my last one either who would later be de-triggered by separating a moment of fantasy from reality.
  9. I think we often like to take the suicide, depression, and anxiety stats (but particularly suicide) and rope it into our own paradigm. So for those who see the church’s stance on lgbt concerns as a serious issue, religion must be causing suicides...even though when you dig for information that doesn’t seem to be fitting and if you think about it, you’d expect the rates to be falling as there’s more awareness, less repression, and more acceptance of secular living. But that’s not happening. likewise i think Barr and some of this reads into beliefs with minimal stats to back it up. IIRC, social media is a factor only if they’re already prone to anxiety, depression, or comparisons. But we blame it because it’s the thing we see the most as a social shift. If barr were correct, we’d assume that communities with fewer government safety nets are more resilient to suicide and depression. Instead the opposite is also found in the stats. Red states are more often on the list for higher rates and the population where it’s shot up the most are middle age white men in rural areas. Which likely has to do with a number of factors converging: socioeconomic downturns, higher access to lethal and effective means for suicide, cultural handicaps (such as beliefs about what real men do and the acceptability to turn for help from others and talk openly about mental illness), Access to mental healthcare, etc. Understanding some of this in full would likely take more data to nail down. (Some of this comes from the APA article others from suicide prevention training course work) with luv, BD
  10. When i think of this, i think of three experiences that have helped shape my picture of becoming zion over the years. The first was of a ward that truly felt like zion. It was a ward made of several (30+) ethnicities from varying walks of life and regions of the world. I felt like it was a calling just participating in the ward as a lay member. There you were valued for all the experiences that made you you. Cultural heritage and backgrounds were not just a nice perk during food activities but an asset that all could learn from. Needless to say, the ward had a very high baptism rate. The second was a comment from a person going through several chronic health problems. She mentioned to me that she had thought once she’d been in a zion-esque ward...until she became too ill to participate in a lot of activities and her friend base in the ward suddenly dried up. She realized it was wonderful for those who fit, but there were likely always people on the margins who did not feel that same welcoming and place. the last was of a temple cultural celebration in UT. I won’t mention a lot of specific details. But their district had a strong number of specialty wards (think groups like chinese, spanish, and native american wards). Several of these groups wanted to incorporate a dance or experience from their cultures to celebrate. But the person in charge was a white utahn who had decided previously what would be the main numbers and was not open to incorporating other things. So the history focused on white 1800’s pioneers and the numbers and dances were largely focused on local white and pop culture references/experiences. And the minority wards were placed and brought to celebrate based on that image of UT. I think it’ll one day be lovely to have a time where the content of character is the judgment block for all. BUT if it’s not done with their context and heritage as valued additions to the table of the gospel, it will be incomplete. It won’t be zion. We all like the image of MLK’s speech but the lines to get to that image were marked by themes of justice, visibility, and viable pathways to freedom and success. These lines in particular stand out to me: “As we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating "For Whites Only". We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream. .... I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.” We still have a ways to go as a general society...but we also have a ways to go as a church as well. Ignoring that there are still concerns today and being content with the progress we have made isn’t enough. We have steps to take. Some we can do individually, some which are institutional in nature. Many black american LDS members so this moment as one small step to that equitable and just future. One that is more truly zion in nature. With luv BD
  11. This feels a bit like making mountains out of molehills. I just read the article and found it pretty balanced for the most part. Couple of quick thoughts: Part of the reason for limited fanfare is that as a 70, it’s not as quickly recognized that he’s aftican american from just reading the names. Yes, they could have noticed by the pics later. And i’m sure there was excitement to some extent to those who did know him...but it’s not visible unless he’s called to speak at GC, like he was. Sitati and Martins were both from different countries and cultures...countries and cultures that were more contemporary in the history of our faith than say african americans, who have been here from the start and felt the brunt of the priesthood ban first hand as a people for the longest time (as well as other forms of racial stratification and oppression within the us church body tied to it). That doesnt mean black American members weren’t happy by these moments. They were. But there’s an added measure of joy hearing a sermon in a tone and religious intonation that is common in Genesis, familiar in many of their spiritual roots and being shared openly (and appreciated) with the general body of the church. African american forms of worship have often seen as incorrect, not bringing the spirit, or a little weird in one way or another. I’ve seen said reactions. More than once and in different venues. So...That is a sign of progress. And being “a sign” doesn’t mean there were “no signs” as you read into the quote. Just a greater indication that specific cultures and communities historically denigrated or kept separate and second class, truly have an equal place at the table with their own flavor to spirituality seen as an enhancement to the feast with luv, BD
  12. (Forewarning, likely typos. Doing this on a phone while rocking a baby) I’ve been pretty busy today and haven’t read the thread much past the first page. So some of this may likely be redundant. I’d likely fit the bolded thought. Definitely excited about the change and several of the recent ones. But still at least hesitant to assert priesthood ordination for women in the same way as men. I know i’ve mentioned before that I looked at a number of the reasoning and desires for with the question of could we get what they desire without ordination and would ordination be sufficient to meet several of the concerns. The answer for myself was yes and no. Beyond that and on this specific concern i’ve seen some assume these are the baby steps leading to eventual ordination. I’ve seen those who’ve taken it with a more pragmatic outlook for the changes (comfort of others, number of ordained priesthood leaders being limited, meeting gender concerns for members who that would be a stumbling block, etc). Personally, feel like they both focus on a part of the recent changes and not the whole in aggregate. Certain changes especially get highlighted that appear to bouy ones position. With the changes i’ve seen at large, i feel like it’s leading us somewhere definitely better than what i had as a child. I think it more tied to reaching the image in the scriptures in the beginning of Moses 5 with how their relationship and cooperation in their role and obligations from god as equal partners. And to better match Nelson’s focus of a family centered-church supported body of believers. Most of the changes i’ve seen reaffirm this emphasis by deconstructing the more male-centered and hierarchical oriented power to one of family centered parent led community oriented power. Some of the wording in the endowment, initiatory, sealings, and now this policy points me more toward this more collaborative power. I also think it giving space to see what the priesthood really is rather than what we’ve traditionally assumed it to be (ie. Male dominated and something the dudes do/possess). Instead it’s point out that the priesthood is the power of Christ to act on earth and all who partake in it receive said power and Authority. It’s strength isn’t seen fully when only men wield said power. It’s when we realize that all of us can and do and can do even more so if we just ask and seek. Which is why I think baptized children can now participate in witnessing...because they too have been given power through the ordinances they received the baptism and receiving the HG. I think there’s more to come. I hope for more to come as we implement these changes. But what i desire from the priesthood, can be done without ordination...though not without priesthood power. I want to be able to know god, receive revelation, more fully use the gifts i’ve been promised, lead my family and other when needed spiritually, and build up the Kingdom of god with greater knowledge and power. With luv, BD
  13. Okay, I finally have a minute to respond, though I have been thinking of what you mentioned. Smac can respond for himself, he likely would have a differing opinion to some extent. First off, I do empathize with several of the general themes you mention, being a minority myself (of a different sort, but still). When I was writing, I mentioned near the end that I wasn't 100% sure why I was writing. I would add, I'm not 100% sure why you were sharing the article since there wasn't your own analysis or explanation about it. So it was largely just my reaction to it from my concern. My biggest concern is my own community and how to develop it in such a way that people who may not fit the average "mormon mould" per se can feel they have a place. I also pictured myself and my large and usually very conservative family. Would this article actually help them be more understanding to those not like them or would it be more likely to entrench them in their world view because they felt attacked? For me the answer was the latter. I think of people who are still somewhere in the middle ground....whether that be coming out to their still very LDS family, deciding to stay in the church as an LGBT individual, or even coming to the church as one as well. They're the ones who have the most direct connection to the effects of the church and I wonder if this would really actually validate them or lead them to feel the strain of bridging two communities. I couldn't see how it would really be a source of validation beyond those already disaffected possibly or moving a community forward. I view the misrepresentations/inaccuracies in beliefs important considering they're used to support her main point that the church is gaslighting the LGBTQ+ community and have been abusing them collectively. That's a lofty claim and one that could come at a heavy cost for a community that, outside of UT, is a minority religious group. I get that the church leaders have been a work in progress, to say the least, on their dialogue and stance towards LGBT people and families. I don't think though it's helpful to give license to others to do likewise to pidgeon a wide group of people who make up the church body as a whole. as for your two questions: a) I have no Idea, but I think overall we would be a better world if we could work to understand and properly represent other groups of people...even if (or maybe especially) it's a group we tend to oppose. b.) Outside the community? Not much. Which is fine to me considering the initial address was for those inside it. On the last line I bolded, I feel that's definitely putting words in my mouth. I didn't say anything of that sort. I've definitely had my concerns with how the LDS church has described LGBT people in the past and I'm pleased when I see a good step forward to find a better ground and space for those who may describe themselves as LGBT or SSA or non-labeled altogether. I don't think it will ever look the way that would satisfy entirely those outside the community....but I hope it will make a better place inside. Anyways, I'll be paying tomorrow for not getting some rest soon. So I'll end here. With luv, BD
  14. Hi daniel, i just want to make sure i’m understandIng you. Is the entire post meant to respond to Smac, me, or both of us? Thanks, BD
  15. I get why people can see gas lighting. It’s a means of naming a pain or something they feel is wrong. It’s definitely understandable to me, I’ve seen people do it before on a variety of concerns or hurts (messy divorces especially come to mind), but it’s still incorrect to me. I would find that sort of label concerning from anyone because the labels can again create more harm than good. Though I don’t actively participate in LGBT related topics on this board much i also remember and read the same things you pointed out. I wasn’t opposed to the policy once it was clarified (the first week or so when it’s parameters were unclear, it was shocking, painful, and uncertain to me). i assumed the worst case scenarios were likely not what it meant. And the clarification, though hard, made sense to me. But around that time I made a different assumption that they were setting up a balance between care and boundaries with belief. And prior I never really believed our doctrine around marriage was headed for a radical shift. I think those assumptions likely shift my view of the same events you mention in such a way that I don’t see it as a reinterpretation. I also view “defend their authority” differently as well. In the vacuum of words, people have often put their own words and beliefs into what they must have thought or done. I also saw it cause a lot of confusion for members and a bit of either/or thinking. I see it as giving clarity to their side and perspective and experiences that led to what felt like radical quick shifts in policies. Honestly among other things, watching the experiences of people around this has been interesting to me. It points to me, at least, just how much our own stances and beliefs can effect how we view the exact same thing. I’m at peace in my engagement in the church. I know I don’t fit in to one or the other usual camp on this issue and i’m okay with that. I hope, whatever level of engagement you have in the church it come eventually with a sense of peace as well. with luv, BD
  • Create New...