Jump to content
  • 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 May 28

BlueDreams had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,657 Excellent

About BlueDreams

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

2,307 profile views
  1. You mean like these peaceful protesters? I have watched videos and scenes of violence. The worst violence by far was from the WN's, alt-right, neo nazis, and other garden variety racists. They were also inciting violence by goading the counter protesters with violent chants, racist posters and mockery, and nazi salutes. as well as several cases of escalating violence like charging at the crowd, throwing the first punch etc. and remember they started their weekend of protesting when they had a permit for something at noon the next day, in the dark with torches in a manner similar to the KKK terrorist group, chanting blood and soil, the Jews will not replace us, this is our city now, and at one point black lives splatter. Not all the counter protesters were super peaceful, sure, but the worst violence I saw from them that wasn't instigated as immediate self defense was cussing, spitting, and pepper spray. These are not equal. And before you say I'm joining the media. I looked for first hand images and video. Including a long livestream from one of the torch wielding protesters. And another from a different WN group. It is complete nonsense that this was somehow equal in fault. One side was ready for a race war. The other was protecting their town and standing up to their way of life. With luv, BD
  2. In Latter Times Some Shall Forbid Marriage

    We have differences of course, but in this I can completely agree with you. We may never see eye-to-eye, but I hope that I will always listen and try to understand. If there is a time that you feel like I'm not seeing you, please let me know and I'll work to listen more carefully. With luv and appreciation, BD
  3. In Latter Times Some Shall Forbid Marriage

    I have been to northstar and have met several of the people apart of it/directing it. They most certainly do not have the same goal as Evergreen. With luv, BD
  4. In Latter Times Some Shall Forbid Marriage

    I still believe that being deceived still generally assumes that someone was purposely deceiving...as in someone was in the know of the scam. It's not just a sense of malice, but a knowledge that what they were say was BS. That is highly unlikely. I still believe that church leaders speak for God....within their stewardship. I have no doubt that my bishop is inspired to lead and guide the direction of the ward. That he can use his talents to give spiritual guidance. I believe he would be overstepping to insist that I should do something very specific and personal, like marry someone I may not even be attracted to. Even as a straight person that would be absurd. Or maybe the absurdity just becomes more obvious in said case. That is my stewardship. He may give me advice and counsel with me. But that is very different than counseling at me. I remember this story of a man who was in a relationship with an awful woman in my program...it was so bad that an apostle who knew him suggested divorce as well. But he felt strongly that he shouldn't. So he didn't. Over the years the woman got help, woke up, and their marriage became a real one. The apostle (and everyone else he talked to) gave sound and reasonable advice in his circumstance based off the information they had. But ultimately it was his stewardship and his revelation that mattered most. The difference I see with the first round of advice-giving and the assumption of healing thru marriage and the current policy is several fold. For one, it was actually within the apostles stewardship to make such a call for the church. For another it was actually based off of study and prayer (from what is described) and there is scripture to bolster this (as per my first post in this thread as an example). There is nothing that comes close to the advice you were given in scripture. Lastly I don't read it as a promise, but a reiteration of basic church doctrine about what form marriage takes in the eternities. I think there's a difference between recognizing the parameters of revelation and stewardship and insisting that they're like any other leaders in any other church. Obviously this is based on faith and my beliefs. I still believe that church leaders have a "special connection" to God...one that I have for my stewardship as well. I've felt it change as my callings have changed. I fall in the camp that trusts that this is the direction that we are to go in. You're right that I have the privilege of not being directly effected by this. I'm not gay, I'm attracted to men. I'm aware that this is a privilege. At the same time, this doesn't mean that I am sheltered from the effects of this. Again it comes from a space of hetero privilege and I work hard to not pontificate about questions that I really don't have answers to. To insist they do things my way. I'm a guest in their stewardship, in their lives. And I've born witness to that pain and the emotional conflicts they face. I will again and it will be my honor to be there. My pleasure when they begin to grasp onto peace and find joy in their journeys, whatever that may entail. In all the pain I've witnessed and all the varying courses, it still has not changed my fundamental belief that the structure of marriage has eternal weight and purpose. It cannot be rewritten by men simply because it's hard at times. I don't say this to try to persuade or make you believe or whatever bunk that would never happen. I simply state this because often times the categories you describe are so either/or and black/white in describing the church. I've very rarely fit these descriptions. And if I don't, I'm sure many others fall short of these descriptions as well. With luv, BD
  5. Lol! I really did chuckle at that at home. Funny thing, I was thinking that maybe I had improved in one of my guilt pleasures about laughing at people getting hurt. But then I watched "Naked" on netflix, which is a comedy about a guy who keeps repeating the same hour before his wedding. There were several scenes of him getting hurt. I started cracking up HARD when he ended up walking into the foyer of the chapel drugged and with a super broken arm. I couldn't stop it.
  6. On the revelation bit, I think there's a few uses and forms of revelation represented in scripture. The one that your alluding to, it feels, is where new truths are given to the people. Obviously this does not fall under that category. Another form of revelation is giving needed direction specific to the time and challenges of the people. Often these aren't "new" per se, but are needed to steer people from temptations or societal pitfalls. You could state that these statements fit those. On your second part, I don't think it's super prevalent. I don't know anyone who would affiliate with this movement....of course most would also not be stupid enough to admit that to me. As I mentioned much of the race issues I've seen in the church have been subtle and/or based of ignorance. But the alt-right and WN movements have worked to rearrange their message to become more tenable to the general (white) populace. Pockets like Ayla who's dialogue is quoted, really earnestly believe that their type of lifestyle is in jeopardy. It's then wrapped into "preservation" language to ones heritage, while riding a more subtle undertone of fear and paranoia about other races. It's feeding off of misconceptions of a homogenous or some for of special similarities shared by all white people. It's ignoring the history of where "white culture" REALLY comes from. With enough soft pedals and blindspots the idea can seem noble...ensuring a place and heritage for ones children. Who wouldn't want that? Of course there's a million holes in this. But I can see how our current climate and their more subtle messages could end up entrapping people into false security by validating their covert racism, general fears, tribalism, ethnocentrism, and ignorance. The harder course is introspection, listening/understanding minority stories, and repentance. The easier is self-justification, combating, and pushing out voices that see things different from you. That's how you get there. With luv, BD
  7. In Latter Times Some Shall Forbid Marriage

    Is it deception if that's what they really earnestly believed? Unknowingly misled, sure. But deception assumes some understanding that what they were promising you was impossible or at least unlikely. They most likely didn't. I would agree that, as you are recalling, it was ignorance and overreach...if not unrighteous dominion since I feel that goes beyond the call of a bishop. (I don't like having anyone tell me what they believe I should do in my life...whoever that is. The bishop's call isn't given stewardship over that for me. So the idea that someone would insist a certain promise would be mine if I did what they suggested would chafe on me hard, unless I had an independent spiritual confirmation). I did not mean to suggest that they were all just giving their advice, either way. I was trying to be generic and relying on the people I have talked to. I don't remember such strong wording for them in their stories. So I tried to have my language cover any who may have had some form of what you mentioned happen to them. With luv, BD
  8. Lol, That happened long ago for me toward you. You are like my id on steroids in your chronic use of sarcasm. What's not to like about that
  9. In Latter Times Some Shall Forbid Marriage

    Maybe in cities and enclaves. At this time it was expanding but not exactly acceptable. Divorce didn't reach its peak until the 80's. And a level of viewing it as a more normative experience until pretty recently. And even now it can carry a stigma, particularly in different cultures. That includes ours. With luv, BD
  10. In Latter Times Some Shall Forbid Marriage

    I don't know if it was general practice, but I have no doubt that it was at times a prevalent belief, particularly in the time frame CB mentioned and probably was getting married in. In or outside the church, what it meant to be attracted to the same sex just wasn't understood and there weren't exactly a lot of open examples running about period for people to learn from. Plus most People in the LGBT category fall under some form of the B end of things....meaning they often could make an opposite sex relationship work, even if the same sex desires were fairly strong....which could have perpetuated the myth (I'm guessing here). There was also a heavy stigma toward divorce in the 60's and 70's particularly....so many once married may have stuck with it anyways, which would again perpetuate the myth in a time where frank discussion about it was unlikely to happen (again, guessing here). etc. So from what a bishop or leader may have seen with those coming to them confessing some form of same sex attraction, it easily could have looked like a success from the outside over the years. I don't know, and haven't seen, solid evidence that it was church policy rather than widely held and uncontested belief at the time. But for older LDS LGBT folks, it is a common theme in their stories/journeys. Younger ones, notsomuch. Though some I've met do have an internal belief about this that doesn't have an immediate root to something in church. More like a desperate hope to be "normal" and have a "normal" life. This can also happen in or out of the church. With luv, BD
  11. I'm an absolute food snob in hiding. I tell people I'm "not picky" but it comes with a footnote of: I don't eat meat, your salad better be fancy...none of this "ceasar salad" crap. I can't stand most added sugar for more than a few bites or sips. I don't drink juice/soda and take my tea with little to no honey. That honey is raw. I cringe when a RS lady brings over treats. I only eat peaches once a year in season (it's right now! I call it my peach Ramadan). I prefer my milk whole and super organic...like the stuff you cut the cream off of organic. I cook almost every day fancy sounding meals. I love cooking. I've had the same bag of sugar for years. My only real vice is good dark chocolate and certain baked goods near my period. I can only stand certain brands of mac n cheese and it's probably not yours. Most spaghetti sauce is gross, I prefer to make mine...I'll tolerate yours. Fast food is of the devil. Most boxed and over packaged food is right beside it. But yeah, not picky. I guess that would also make me a raging liar. On the bright side this is probably why I can't get above 115 when I'm 5'5". My garden. It's excessive. I assure you. Like huge! I play sims still and pharaoh. I don't play consistently and may take weeks or months with barely touching them. But when I do i can play for hours. i love the smell of oil paint. I cant fast strictly past 2-3 pm. I'm always sneaking a banana or pretzels to make it through afternoon church. I'm choosing being poor because I love not working that much and having time to actually enjoy life. I mean, sure it can be intense working with several people as their problems and emotions. Only crazy therapist work 30+ hrs of clients. But I'm aiming for 20-25 tops. I hate being lazy, but turns out I also hate working in excess. I'd rather do yoga and hike and garden. Throw some paint around. Chat with friends. Date. Anything. Turns out I'm not that ambitious. I have to be one of the least ambitious people ever with 2 competitive degrees. I love all things marvel comic movies. I also love most comic book shows. I watch them all the time. I watch comedic political shows every morning. It's the only way I can digest the news as of late. Laugh before I cry at actual news articles. I prefer reading YA fiction and the likes. I just want to get the story not the deep fluff. Any real book takes me forever to read. It was one of the perks to college. It forced me to read real stuff. I cuss. Not a ton. Unless I'm in certain sessions with certain clients. I enjoy watching people squirm in embarrassment about sex. I love shocking people with my job title. I laugh at people getting comically hurt. Or hurt doing something stupid. Every time. If I think about it I probably have more. But that's plenty.
  12. In Latter Times Some Shall Forbid Marriage

    I would not presume to try and convince you otherwise. Obviously from what I've already stated my beliefs and own sense of things through study, prayer, thought, and at times some course correction. I don't expect my church leaders to be 100% correct. I expect there is still plenty to learn. But I do believe that it's built on what truths we already do have. My faith is always in God first and man second. But I am also cautious when my opinions or beliefs diverge from those called to be prophet, seers, and revelators. I am equally aware that I have been and can be wrong. I guess at some point we will both see what God wanted and sees in the long term at some point. My guess is both of us will probably experience some needs for a little tweaking to better align with God's ultimate will with luv, BD
  13. In Latter Times Some Shall Forbid Marriage

    I hope I can answer in equally careful thought, even if much of this will likely be in disagreement. I find both of these parts very interesting. As a vegetarian of 15 years it would look like I was heeding seducing spirit with this scripture alone. A person who may over-indulge in meat could easily come back at me with this verse. But there is also modern revelation that directly expands on this verse in Section 49 (and 89 for the meat): 89 I'm not in famine and I'm not excessively hungry . But either way, modern revelation has given parameters and further clarification to what this means for us. It is not a wholesale endorsement of our current culture that is meat heavy and with practices that are unsustainable or by any means a real form of thanksgiving or need-based. A person who would use this scripture to justify eating a meat-heavy diet would be in the wrong. In fact they may be in condemnation for "wasting flesh" in a time where they don't need it. Likewise with the "forbidding to marry" line. What marriage is, is clarified in the following verses as a man with one wife and partaking in a relationship that makes them "one flesh" ....a specific partnership so important that it is a means to answer the "ends of the earth's creation." This isn't stating it isn't okay to forbid ANY form of marriage. Just that of the marriage between a man and a woman for its absolute importance to Creation in general. Other forms of marriage could and have and will be considered forbidden as they move away from this. I'm not saying this to condemne you any more than I condemn my family for eat way more meat than needed. But I am saying that for LDS particularly this, potential condemnation doesn't work in the context of continuing revelation and other pretty specific scripture. I don't exactly know what you mean by that other church. And though I think we were misguided or allowed a watered-down gospel state (similar to What happened to Israel after the idol incident), they technically didn't forbid marriage. They forbade live sealings. Eternal marriage is core and family is the ultimate goal. But I do think we oversimplify this doctrine in a way that ignores the full scope of God's plan. I've had a lot of time to think about it because the simplified version leaves me currently a spiritual orphan and single-sister drifter. I believe the great plan of happiness entails not just the highest degree of the celestial kingdom but all three degrees of Glory. The ultimate goal is that we will all be sealed as one family. Whether in the pinnacle and connecting roles and co-partners seen in marriage or as the children of said couple. Someone in the terrestial kingdom are still part of the plan of Happiness/Salvation/Redemption. The are still given a portion of light based on what they desire and abide by. They are still saved from death and hell they are still redeemed to receive their terrestial glory. Someone in the telestial kingdom likewise has part in the Family of God and partakes in his plan of happiness. The kingdoms are described as ministering one to another. Ministering to my mind asserts something far from separate. So no matter what choice or direction a gay person makes tied or untied to their sexuality, they are likely to still be partakers in the kingdoms of God....partakers in said glory and, yes, happiness To the bold, no, this is noway exactly the same way as past policies as it was to blacks. Noway. And it really bothers me when exact parallels are made. However difficult it may be, there is STILL a way for a person who is LGBT in someway to partake in the ordinances of the temple and priesthood...by living the parameters of the gospel. No matter how good and obedient a black person was between roughly 1852-1978, they couldn't ever receive any form of priesthood ordinance beyond baptism. It is action and expression of identity/orientation that defines an LGBT persons place in priesthood ordinances. It was identity/color alone that defined a black persons no matter their actions or expression of gospel faith. This issue is definitely difficult and it can be painful for many, without a doubt. But it is an exaggeration that it is exactly like blacks experience of limited and at times literal barring (in the case of the work in Africa) from all the saving ordinances of the gospel. I don't agree. I think its a major one, just not THE major one. I base this off of several people I've met and listened to for their reasoning. Not to dismiss, but to see it from a differing perspective. I simply do not see it the way you do. With luv, BD
  14. Church Statement - LBGTQ concert - is this sincere?

    I do not understand your first question. Feasibly from the assumptions you're going with? I don't know what and who you're assuming the church is cutting itself off from in this questions. In an extremely generic sense there are several groups that the church insists on disassociating themselves with if not condemning (The first statement this week is a perfect example). There are also times that the church has distanced themselves in large or small scales (the pioneer trek to UT). And there are times that we affirm our points even if it contradicts general social consensus. They were for varying reasons, but mostly it was to build/structure the church in accordance with God...not necessarily the world. In the second, a mix of things. But I think it slims down to, I'm okay with pain and struggle, having a less binary view does not necessarily remove such pain, and that there are truth in what the church teaches about sexuality and gender. There is also a lot of cultural baggage surrounding it. But I think the core is still truth. Truth isn't always easy, it was never promised to create a sense of complete ease or comfort within society or our families. But it's still truth. All that said, I think there is a lot of assumptions in your statement/question to a point that it seems fairly loaded. For example, even if one does ascribe to a binary model doesn't mean one's family is destroyed....families just aren't that black and white (hehe...or binary ). In my own with a couple of my out cousins, you have a a large chunk that are very much conservative and "binary" in thought. But the children are never expected to vacate the family. One of my favorite cousins is lesbian. My activity in the chruch, her parents, or her sister's isn't somehow insisting on a major divide between us. The process with her parents and her, wasn't always the smoothest from what I can tell, but it never came close to tearing away the love they have and share. It may (and has) contributed to some rifts. But from what I've seen in the church's current messages and stories that they highlight, they are working hard for that to not be the case. I don't think I was talking about some obvious risk to the church. But I do think that if it adopts the general world view growing, it will lose key parts of the doctrine tied to eternal life. I believe the church will continue to evolve in its understanding of sexuality and gender. I believe that the changes will bring us that much closer to a zion people. I do not believe that what that looks like is what the world is currently ascribing as right. With luv, BD
  15. Church Statement - LBGTQ concert - is this sincere?

    I cannot say that I agree. Mainly because I do believe in a fundamental structure of a man and woman as needed and balancing partners in a marriage as an ideal withe eternal precedence. I had my own wrestle of ideas around this a while ago. It shifts more subtly at this point as new experiences and perspectives are shared with me IRL. But I haven't had anything to push me to that fundamental shift. The closest to that happening was in my teens. Some of this is most likely cultural/religion based in reasoning. But another important part is my own family and experiences in them. I do not fault others from seeing it differently. And this does not mean that there cannot be value and goodness in same sex relationships. But it is a fundamental belief that I believe has eternal weight. I can appreciate your perspective and your desire, I just don't agree with it. As for sexuality and gender. Sexuality isn't binary, I agree. It can often not be super rigid as well. And it can be heavily influenced in its expression by culture, personality, circumstance, context, time of the month, etc. Ditching the binary on this wouldn't suddenly create the results you're looking for. I feel like I have a pretty nuanced and complicated view of sexuality. I still make judgment calls, hold to my own value structure, etc. The expression of gender is by its definition flexible since it is a term specifically tied to cultural and social rules/expectations based largely on sex. This also doesn't mean that they would necessary remove a binary model within the church. Even with acknowledging that there are differing forms of gender expression or definition, the church position could easily end up as believing that there is an ultimate basic celestial expression that has important weight and purpose. Which is what I generally believe. I don't mean to be a wet blanket. But I simply think this course you've written up is oversimplified and not an absolute course. I believe this, because it simply didn't work for me. My views have grown more complex and nuanced, I do not view someone's sexual expression as inherently evil, I'm not super judgy about the course one takes (I understand, may be sad, but I'll love the person not matter what). But my core beliefs of what constitutes a celestial marriage hasn't changed. Not one iota. That indicates to me it may be more difficult than you think. I saw this in passing and thought it interesting. I think I see myself as a more behind the scenes and quieter ally. I don't necessarily actively look for LGBT folk to befriend or help, but when they come I'm warm and loving and work earnestly with them. I consider it an honor that they would open up to me. I gently nudge unhealthy or ignorant beliefs when I hear them espoused in church or among others. In therapy, they have been some of my favorite clientele to work with as I work with them to navigate understanding who they are and what they feel and what this means in the context of their life. And what course/expression they feel is most congruent with what they value. As I mentioned I'm utterly curious and astonished by the interesting middle area between LGBT and mormon. I've attended a couple Northstar conferences, Several summer seminars that my old program would hold about it, read/listened to several stories and perspectives, seen several clients somewhere on the LGBQ range (no T's yet), participate in a circles of empathy (they're basically a very egalitarian group just learning to explore oneself in terms of sexuality and attraction...I was the only purely straight identified one in the group), etc. On my book list, is a small one about bisexuality and religion. I don't consider myself an expert by any stretch of the imagination. But I do believe Northstar can be helpful for specific folks. And when it fits, I recommend at least parts of the experiences to them. One thing that I have learned, that may be helpful is that there is a difference between orientation, identity, and expression of sexuality. Orientations are often more constant. They can change a little, but those changes are often slow moving and not necessarily by choice by any meaningful definition of that word. Identity is dependent on the person, their culture, and their personal relationship and understanding of themselves. it's more mobile and it is often more of a decision that is still dependent/rooted in cultural avenues. Expression is consistently fluid. It is influenced by the first two, other factors not mentioned, and our own personal desire/decisions for our sexuality. This is the thing I think many people describe as "lifestyle" though I prefer the word expression. It's not just about the partners we choose or the person we find attractive. It can be a continual dialogue and source of inspiration and means of relating with others....both platonically and romantically. It can be molded into our other forms of expression and feelings. In our creative outlets and more. With luv, BD