Jump to content

BlueDreams

Contributor
  • Content Count

    3,503
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5,771 Excellent

About BlueDreams

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

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

2,925 profile views
  1. BlueDreams

    This American Life

    No...at least not as a distinctive trait tied by gender. I'm also protective of my husband, unborn fetus, my bros, close friends, etc. Being protective is more a trait of being close to someone and protecting our social groups. With luv, BD
  2. BlueDreams

    This American Life

    Just so you know, you quoted me...Bluedreams ...I don't know if you meant to quote Juliann instead. With luv, BD
  3. BlueDreams

    This American Life

    As a feminist, I find it weird how much you've seem to place all feminists into one formula of belief and outlook on the situation. There's several ways that this could be looked at that doesn't entail your interpretation from a feminist perspective. For example one could point out that the first initial stance that male relatives would never stand for these in some form of protective postering is a form of patriarchy in itself as is using this sense of protective duty against wrong-doing as a means to unilaterally dismiss women's concerns and perspectives of an issue. One could also point that ignoring the male hierarchical system (both in design and cultural precedence) in the church means that women will especially need male allies in order to have their views hold traction in certain circumstances. Especially with people who are more likely to practice such forms of unrighteous dominion. Where there is likely misconduct in positions of power, it can be difficult to make headway as a female in male-dominated circles. I'm not necessarily promoting one explanation over another. But I find the posturing around feminism in odd broad strokes logically sloppy at best and a little irritating as a feminist myself. It reads ast building some odd strawman in a discussion that isn't specifically addressing feminist perspectives of an issue in the first place. With luv, BD
  4. BlueDreams

    This American Life

    Hi Mustard Seed, I can't respond to all of this point-by-point and I haven't read the thread at all...but I wanted to give you my perspective as a sex therapist who works primarily with LDS clientele. At least half of your concerns are basically my bread and butter to some extent. I say this partially in jest, but these are themes that occur fairly frequently in my office. As a forward, I've learned when talking about these things on this site, i need to censor terms in order for my post to not hit the firewall. So ignore all the astricks First of all, with your son I find it personally ridiculous that he hasn't been able to pass the sacrament in 2 years for what I assume is nothing more than P*rn and/or M*sturbation (P+M) issues. But I'm also not surprised. A similar issue happened to my brother for several months. I find the behavior shaming instead of helpful in most cases for teens, especially. I kept telling my brother that he wasn't the only one, he was just the only one who'd been honest and open about a concern. But he couldn't believe it, seeing the proof in his problems with being the only one who couldn't participate in priesthood ordinances. That is, until my encouragement and normalizing helped him to finally open up to a friend and he learned his friend also had struggled with it as well. What I've found is that the reactions and discipline deemed necessary are influenced by the bishop's own cultural baggage and expectations. I've had clients where I thought they should probably be on probation of some sort who had nothing happen to them. And I've had others that I wouldn't consider their concerns all that serious who were having some form of informal discipline. This cultural inconsistency and at times overreaction can lead to other problems. For example, they can become confused or miss the whisperings of the spirit. When they feel the influence of the spirit, they may question whether they really are because they've learned that "serious sins" cut them off from the spirit. They may believe what they're doing is irredeemably evil, or so terrible that it puts them on Corianton-level sins (I've actually sat and read those scriptures in Alma 39 with them in my office more than once to point out that they don't fit the degree of wrong doing Corianton was at...just did so as recently as a week ago)....so they can't hear or believe God/others who may speak of their goodness and worthiness of love, etc. One note though, I haven't heard enough to find that the tendency to probe in interview questions about chastity concerns is super gender oriented. Both men and women have come in telling me about interviews that I would have deemed wrong. On that note, culturally, we're relatively egalitarian. Chastity sins as a guy or a girl are concerning. The one big cultural difference is probably tied to the shock value when they find our a woman is struggling with P or M. Culturally, we treat Chasity issues as more grave than any other sin. I point out that if you pause and say "I try to be honest with my fellow men" at an interview v. "I try to follow the law of chastity"....its the chastity question that bishops and others may likely hone in on and ask follow-up questions. There's no scriptural edict to say that lying is more permissable than fornication. When people try to say such, I point out that "liars are thrust down to hell." When people point to the added degree of importance of Chastity to our temple covenants I point out the Law of Consecration is even moreso. We simply don't have a level of discernment and mercy tied to chastity as we do other covenants and commandments given. I don't know where this comes from entirely. I think Packer and the 60's-70's added institutional umph to the focus of sexual issues...but I also think that it was largely stating what most people already believed in the predominant mainstream US culture. This isn't something that can be laid solely at the feet of LDS culture. I've seen issues amplified by hollywood, family ideals, peer groups, sports teams, etc. LDS beliefs taken out of a holistic gospel context often are used to legitimize personal or family reactions to specific chastity concerns or s*exual development. Just as I wouldn't lay this solely on the feet of Packer, I wouldn't lay this solely at the feet of bishops either. This is a cultural phenomenon. I find that people have often placed a heavy dependence on the Bishops calling to oversee several issues they likely need to work on more with themselves and God. In short, several people inadvertently supplement Bishop for deity. Nothing in the gospel says that's appropriate....but how they interact with bishops (or other male authority leaders....usually male) looks like it. Its common for people, after doing something they feel is wrong, to not spend time praying or pondering out the issue and instead running to bishop ASAP...even before parents or spouses etc. So instead of taking first private and sacred counsel with God, they use Bishop as a prolonged intermediary to figure out what they should do. I find this concerning on a number of levels. 1.) instead of making an agentic people who live up to Moses' ancient hope that we would all be prophets of sorts, it creates a dependent people. It stunts spiritual development. I remember talking to my bishop about this and stating my method throughout my single years was to seek counsel with God in my s*exual expressions (for definition, I think of anything that fosters physical connection a form of said expression) to make sure it was alligned with where I was in a relationship. Sometimes it didn't, I would pray and ask what He would like me to do and I'd do that. If he'd ever said, "go see the bishop" I would have done so. He never did. So I never did. My bishop stated that is a rare trait to have. I pointed out that it shouldn't be. That that's the sort of relationship with God we should be helping others to foster. 2.) Many don't actually know the purpose and meaning of the LoC. They focus on actions they should or shouldn't do at any given time than the actual spiritual purpose to it. I've asked people, more than once, what the purpose of the LoC is and they stared at me blank-faced or admitted they had no clue. This comes from our focus on specific acts as opposed to focusing on principle in the way we teach and interact with the LoC. If it were up to me, I would first define the spiritual law of the LoC and its purposes on a spiritual level. From my study, it is to help master and point our s*exual desires to our marital partner as God would intend and to be a means to then grow and foster our deepest covenants of marriage. Pre-marriage is to help us learn to practice, master, and point our desires towards this Godly covenant. In pragmatic language, it would mean that "practicing" would entail having ones s*xual expression match with the degree of commitment, love, and respect you have with the other person. THat you're practicing showing love toward the person in several avenues where physical expression matches up with these. When it comes to interviews or meetings with the bishops, instead of poking and prodding about what they did or didn't do as indications of worthiness, I'd focus on being a facilitator for them to understand their own degree of culpability and the gravity of the situation. I would re-explain the principle of the LoC and then ask them to search out for themselves if what they were doing (without asking for details) matched their degree of love and commitment towards each other. In short I would put it heavily in their court to discern whether what they were doing was in need of a stronger repentance process than usual....pointing out stories of mercy and care first to help ease their sense of panic about what they've done. Bishop would be facilitator and the Spirit, ideally, would be the teacher. *** of course to do so, would also mean teaching correctly not only the LoC, but ideas about consent, respect, love, equity in relationships, s*xual maturation and developmental stages, etc. In short we need a cultural face-lift that stops confusing "innocence" with "Ignorance" of s*xuality. Last thing: there are positive things within our faith and the gospel especially. I'm running out of time, but they do exist....i use a number of those also in therapy to combat some of the negative beliefs we've fostered. With luv, BD
  5. BlueDreams

    What? No authority needed to pass the sacrament?

    I don't see how it is considered more subservient than when at times adult men are assisting in passing the sacrament. But like BB and Calm, I assumed that the passing would still largely happen with the youth, not the adults. One of the reasons I could see it as empowering is in part from my own childhood. I did not have any sense of connection to the priesthood or that I held any form of priesthood power or authority until I had gone through the temple and was knee deep in my mission. So much of the priesthood had been gendered and was often presented to me as gendered that it seemed something that didn't really have much to do with me. I look back at that and can see just how limiting that was in my own spiritual preparation and development. I had never learned how to actively seek and use the priesthood in my journey. Heck many women joked (and still do) about holding the priesthood or using the priesthood in reference to their husband. This also caused unnecessary dissonance with my PB and our overarching culture....so much of what my blessing described of me seemed overtly traditional "male roles." I think that is actively being worked on through our leadership nowadays by trying to shift language to emphasize the priesthood is neither male or female. Just recently, Elder Bednar was in our stake overtly stating as much....that the men were not the priesthood. But I think the more that we can see that visibly from a young age and feel active participation in priesthood power...the greater the lesson and cultural shifts. There could be lessons teaching young women that as the serve in their YW's callings and participate in passing that they too were preparing for their temple covenant by learning to honor the priesthood power given to all of those that have made covenants with God. It may open discussions more explicitly in YW's about the difference between being ordained and having access to priesthood power. And it could give more avenues for YW to actively practice honoring their covenants and participating in the priesthood at a younger age. Again, some of this is happening now....but I think opening this up would actively expand YW's understanding in particular of the power and capacities they hold in the priesthood to be representatives of Jesus Christ. Personally, as I've come to better understand and actively seek the priesthood in my daily life/calling, I've felt more strength and greater capacities than when I was more blind to the gifts bestowed through the covenants I'd made. There is very few things that embody spiritual empowerment than literally participating in the work and power of God. And I want my sisters to see and access that more from a younger age. With luv, BD
  6. BlueDreams

    What? No authority needed to pass the sacrament?

    I ran out of day the last few days but agree with BB has mentioned. I don't know if it would be productive to go in circles with this. I don't view your evidence as solid evidence and the verses in and of themselves in note sufficient to back your main theory. But on this point I would like to say a few things: I strongly disagree that it would take radical changes to the order of the priesthood. It would take changes in current policies, but it wouldn't be a shift to our doctrine. The only way one can assume that is if you assume your theory in the OP as absolute and correct. I don't. To keep this fairly brief, to have YW passing with the YM would be no more shocking than having women performing temple rites. They would be given authority to assist in priesthood ordinances without having to be ordained themselves. And as mentioned, it is less "radical" than what happens in the temple to me, because I do not believe the young men passing the sacrament are any different than those passing from person to person in the pews. With luv, BD
  7. I think you can see that in other issues within the church where the church may come out more for something (such as more compassionate immigration and care for refugees) and it doesn't always persuade members away from strident positions or beliefs. As much as a lot of people think of the church as more swayed by their leader's opinion....there's always been diverse opinions and beliefs within the church body....sometimes it's just more apparent. For myself, I voted for the legislation. As did an LDS peer of mine whose child has problems with seizures that CBD helps with. To me, the potential concerns do not outweigh the potential benefits . Plus medical legalization, once more widespread, will hopefully bring more changes as Pogi mentioned to federal law and regulations that could allow it to be studied and regulated better as a potentially beneficial drug treatment to varying ailments. With luv, BD
  8. I agree with everybody's assertion that you should go again. There's only so much I would feel comfortable sharing in an open forum. And learning from the temple is a personal experience that can't be had solely by knowing the technical parts. It's an experience and something learn again and again by taking in the words and seeking them out through scripture, experience, and prayer. But that said, part of the initiatory ordinance is sealed by the ordinance workers performing them...so all temple workers who perform said ordinances also participate in the sealing power as they are given authority to do so. Interestingly, the part sealed is the one that most parallels the baptism ordinance. With luv, BD
  9. I actually dislike this reasoning. To me, the distinctions in the ordinances are tied more to the specific works they're asked to participate in this life. We're in the end given the exact same blessings, but I believe the tie women have to the veil is part of the reason for the distinctions. With luv, BD
  10. BlueDreams

    What? No authority needed to pass the sacrament?

    No, I get what you're saying. I just don't think what you're deeming as evidence is sufficient evidence for the specific practice as you mentioned. It's not saying what you're saying without assuming so from the get go. A different example would be reading the wording in the WoW and state that it is evidence that we shouldn't misuse prescription drugs or drink caffeine....or that the reason we don't drink tea or coffee is because of said caffeine. No where does it actually say something like that in the WoW...the only way you get to that is by inserting current practices or beliefs into the meaning of the text. Which is okay...I use the WoW to support my current practice in trying to eat healthy, avoiding addictive substances and high-processed food, and being vegetarian. I see it as supportive of what I'm doing. But it should be acknowledged what the text says or doesn't say. I know that the WoW doesn't actually say you should stop eating high-processed foods or added sugar for example....it's not sufficient evidence for it...but the idea behind it can still support what I view as right. This allows the flexibility for us to change practice when needed and allow for adaptation or differing interpretations for others....while striving in our time to live the foundational doctrine. I do not believe either one of us is talking absolute proofs (though, speaking of synonyms....evidence and proof are also synonyms of each other. Still, I get what you're trying to convey). If it is only "evidence to me" and few to no one else can say the same, it's opinion. It's not doing enough to indicate your belief is true or valid (the basic definition of evidence). On the bold, as a temple worker who often performs and administers the sacred ordinances to my fellow sisters each week, I don't see the same direct parallel in the sacrament that you are inferring to. In fact in my opinion, it could better parallel by having YW participate. Note, this is my opinion. The text can support our current practice and I'm currently okay with our current practices. But I am open and can see value in potential changes to said practices that in my mind wouldn't invalidate the same doctrinal edict we're both reading. A change that had Young Women also passing, for example, would not violate the scripture you've quoted several times (in essence my "evidence" is the same scripture you're using....but I wouldn't call it evidence, just feasibly congruent with the doctrine). I could also point to the same quote blueglass pointed out to earlier in this thread about women participating in the work of the priesthood. I could also point to the order in the temple and that having priesthood authority to perform ordinances doesn't just happen for those ordained. That women may also play an active part in priesthood ordinances and giving said emblems. Since it's an ordinance, reaffirming other ordinances and promises we've actively committed to through baptism (and aspire to/taken on through the temple)...it makes sense to me that those who have entered said covenants would be the ones to actively participate in helping with said covenants. With luv, BD
  11. BlueDreams

    What? No authority needed to pass the sacrament?

    The presentism is excluding or ignoring other methods that the people in 3 Nephi could have equally used to give the sacrament to the people that doesn’t fit your thesis or the practice as we currently have it. The command to give part can be considered done as soon as the people blessing and breaking the sacramental emblems have handed it to a person who didn’t bless it. Whether that be the boys waiting to pass it to rows, the person sitting next to them in a small room of members, etc..they have done what is sufficient to meet the command in 3 Nephi. In all but the example of calling others ordained or handing it individually themselves, there are methods that include utilizing non-ordained members to pass. And we still use non-ordained members to pass the sacrament. We’re just sitting in the rows doing it. If it were as essential as you're assuming with your thesis to have an ordained priesthood holder give to each member in the way you’re describing, our current practice would be changed as well to meet up to scriptural edict. But there isn't said scriptural edict. Then I still disagree. 3 Nephi is not sufficient evidence for what you’re posturing for the reasons I stated above. I am using pass as we currently do in the church. Which is what all of us do to some extent in the church every Sunday. We don’t delineate through language, those who pass the sacrament from person to person in a pew v. passing the sacrament from row to row and into the foyer. There is no specifier as to what it looked like to give the sacrament to the peoples in 3 Nephi. To have give and pass be synonymous in these specific acts and interpretively exclude methods of passing that don’t specifically entail priesthood-holders is arbitrary. And again, current precedent can change and has the doctrinal flexibility to do so. Yes, I’m aware that other priesthood holders pass. I meant preference is given to Aaronic priesthood holders, specifically deacons/teachers not that no other priesthood holders could or have. The current method does….BUT….it could include young women being more actively participatory (as an example) without it changing the pattern of 3 Nephi in the least. Which is the problem in deeming this evidence for a specific group passing the sacrament. It may have been a better criticism in the other thread which those who were more strident about tradition precedent and procedure were more likely to not be okay with the nursing room passings as shown. If the implication to something means that some may not receive the ordinance unneccesarily, that could be an example of impeding spiritual experiences. Some could and have offered that having young women be more active in participation in ordinances in some way can also help in developing their spiritual development along with their male counterparts. But in general, I am leery of assuming scriptures say something that they don’t because it can lead to rigidity in our current practices. It's a figure of speech. I didn’t expect it to be taken literally. You can believe and hold your opinion as you would like.... But to state this passage is clear evidence is simply not the case. With luv, BD
  12. BlueDreams

    What? No authority needed to pass the sacrament?

    Hey Rain, I can answer these Q's pretty easily. Yes, Women are given authority to administer initiatory and enowment ordinances to sisters when they are set apart in their calling to do so by the temple presidency. It's the same authority with both endowment, name issue, and initiatory, for women called to be ordinance workers. We're not "ordained" per se, as is commonly meant in the church today by that word. But it's the priesthood power given to us to administer in this ordinance by the temple presidency, though. With luv, BD
  13. Fun fact...marriage sealings are not the only ordinance in the temple where blessings are sealed to those receiving it. When you have the chance, pay close attention to the initiatory blessings. I'm out of time for the day, But I may add some more later. With luv, BD
  14. BlueDreams

    What? No authority needed to pass the sacrament?

    Up until the point in bold, I agree. That is what it says. The bold is completely based on your perspective and imagination as to what happened in large part likely based on current policy. That's called presentism. Though I can agree that that may have been what happened. I could also imagine them handing baskets of broken bread to the people to pass amongst themselves in intervals, making sure all had a chance to partake. I could see them choosing people to help or seeking volunteers to help in distribution. I could see them calling all children to lend a hand. Or all women. Or a mixed bunch. Or no bunch at all and they really did take the time to go to each of them individually. All of these could have happened. The passage does not give a specific detailed account of how they fulfilled Christ's edict. Just that they did. Is there reasoning to back our current policy based on scriptural interpretation? Yes, that I agree with. Is there exact and explicit wording that insists the only correct way to pass the sacrament is through Deacon assistance solely? That I would disagree with. The bold is probably the weakest part of your thesis. If it is important who specifically passes the sacrament (to replace pass with give is, again, your interpretation) and its actually apart of the ordinance, we would adjust our practices to match the needs of our ordinances even if it were inconvenient. In all major parts of ordinances in the church, they are expected to be performed by those authorized to perform them with exactness from beginning to end. Note the underlined. There is much more leeway given to receiving the ordinance, usually. In the temple, with our most sacred ordinances, the general rule is to make sure that in bringing the ordinances to the people, we do our best to remember what's most important: the people receiving it and participating in it. And where there can be needed leeway, it should be given in order to not reduce people's access to the spirit. The general policy currently is for deacons to have preference in passing the sacrament from row-to-row. It's not in direct conflict with scripture to do so and it has served purposes in helping those who are receiving the ordinance (including the deacons themselves). In other words, its relatively functional as of now. But in order to help fulfill the true purpose and command of the Lord to give to all members or for other purposes we may not fully foresee right now, there may be changes or exceptions to that policy that would still not contradict the doctrine found in 3 Nephi and the NT. My concern with your theory is that I'm worried it focuses more on the procedure of an ordinance than the true purposes for it and that it assumes current policy is the only possible interpretation or correlation to the doctrine given. That could act as an unintentional stumbling block if we confuse too much procedure with the Word and truth. I am not saying that people can choose how to implement the sacrament willy nilly. But I've seen people become stuck on procedure to a point that any needed flexibility or alterations can be met with hesitance...even at the cost for other's spiritual experience and communion with the Lord through the ordinances. If you're wanting me to say that there is support for our current policy found in scripture, I can agree. If you're wanting me to say that's the only and/or best way to go about it both in the past, present, and future based on scripture I would strongly disagree. It works for now in most cases. There could be benefit in changing the policy to better meet the needs of the people in the future or in differing regions of the world. With luv, BD
  15. BlueDreams

    What? No authority needed to pass the sacrament?

    Bernard, several people here do not interpret how it should be implemented today the way you are. There are several valid points made that poke holes in your assertions. Referring back to the same scripture as though there is a singular and clear interpretation is simply incorrect. I've read the same instructions you have and see something very different by both how we currently pass the sacrament and potential variations that may or have come up. With luv, BD
×