• 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

4,417 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

2,186 profile views
  1. As I've mentioned, I do not know what I would qualify as. I'm not NOM, I don't think, but I do hold ideas and beliefs that go against the grain of the mainstream. So I probably am a little unorthodox. But I'm also in other ways pretty freaking Mormon, both in beliefs, spiritual direction, and actions. If I don't fit and you prefer my comment be removed, feel free to do so. First...I want to make it clear: i would not at all like to see NOM's leave the church. That is definitely NOT middle ground that I hold with ex's. If someone wants to leave that's their choice, but I wouldn't be pushing for it. Even the ones who may irritate me. The church is bigger than myself and my preferences. Who am I to decide who stays and goes. Second I disagree with the premise to the idea that harm in staying if you're unorthodox, nom, or any other form of different Mormon will happen and make the problem worse. I've met plenty where that's just not the case. I think the idea that this ascribes is something that I feel can happen more in both very orthodox and ex-Mormon communities - rigidity, black and white thinking, and excess idealism. This specific ideal (that those who don't fit the mould should leave) is particularly dangerous, IMO. It leaves people more divided and creates echo chamber narratives. You can see this problem with how the nation does politics, race relations, internet communities, etc. where there can't be a balance in varying ideas, there's blind spots, division, and growing/continuing misrepresentations from both sides. I also think it's misplaced to place the ideal community as the one more devoid of interrelational discomfort/pain. I think the value is generally to the community at large and an acceptance that there's different flavors of Mormonism. I reject the notion that only one sort of Mormon is allowed a space to worship. It still astounds me how adamant certain people can be about what mormons are when what they describe is just one type of Mormon (one I don't fit neatly into). Some of my ex-mormon or nomos have assumed some massive level of dissonance or rebellion on my part that's really more about the preconceptions about Mormons than it is about me. I was somewhat talking to a guy friend of mine about this as well. He loves the temple but is currently living in a way that would not really allow him to get a temple recommend. He kinda realized that a little more while we discussed it (not by me, he just looked up the questions). He had this moment where he realized that getting a recommend just as is probably won't happen. I do think that at some point there may be boundaries as to what one can do or say in certain formats (like callings or attending the temple or such, depending). And that may entail a bit of sacrifice or restriction on things...it may entail thinking about what participation and interacting will look like....including things that we may really love to do. And that likely isn't easy. I also think there will need to be a learning of patience and compassion both by NOM's/others like it and those who are more orthodox. I find that how we talk to each other can make all the difference. If we do so, it can open us to new thoughts or perspectives. Because I was calm and non-shaming about this guy's experience I could also talk about my differences in experience about this. By his reaction I could tell he had never really thought of it in that specific way. This wasn't the first time that's happened. Likewise when I've held views that sometimes differ from the average mormon view I've found gentle opportune moments to express these also in calm non-shaming ways. These have also generally been well received. likewise, over time it can change dialogue in good ways. I don't think that ALL the things that I or another see will come to fruition. Some of their vision v mine v more orthodox are contradictory. Just by that, someone at some point is going to be wrong. But it can move dialogue. I think a number of the way we discuss and have softened on certain messages...the fact that I've had Heavenly Mother openly discussed more than once is because of voices and people that saw things differently who were Mormon. If they were all outside the church, those voices can be ignored. In it they can contribute to the overall tapestry of the church. Again, I hope this is not intrusive. If you feel this breaks your desired rule to your thread, please feel free to ask for it to be removed. Or tell me and I'll delete it myself. I want to honor your set boundary. With luv, BD
  2. I would have given you crickets. But to be fair. I gave just about everybody crickets today. Could not stay awake in sacrament meeting to save my life! For the record, my little bro has texted me an article (he's 18) and a guy I was hangin out with (he's 37) brought it up briefly as well. With luv, BD
  3. I'm LDS Christian and tend to lean democrat the last 3 elections I've voted democrat. I'm deeply concerned with the growing partisanship and incapacity to work together to find solutions. I'm not that sold on ideology that I think one or the other is the bestest. I would prefer to see positive changes period. And I think that happens better when there's genuine bipartisanship. I lean democrat. I assume my reasons are similar to others who conciesiously think about their political views and are religious. Some of it is thought and exposure to certain thoughts. Some of it is emphasized concern for me of social justice concerns. Some of it are based on my spiritual beliefs. I try not to assume my political beliefs are superior. There are a few things that I'm deeply concerned within the republican camp, such as what I see as being way to tied to businesses in making policy legislation, answering to lobbyists or groups like the NRA than their actual constituents, some forms of what I view as hypocritical stances, etc. in both parties I'm concerned about gerrymandering, over catering to powerful lobbyists period, excess partisanship, dishonesty, misplaced ethics, and the general degneratuon and ineffectiveness. But I am trying to stay informed and active in the political process. This has only grown after this last election. With luv, BD
  4. I haven't been able to read the thread, but decided to respond to you first before doing so....just so it can be my ideas solely on this. I do want to say though, I'm definitely not an expert in this area, to say the least. I think in general, there is an inherent inequity in polygamy. But at that time where the entire society was generally rigged against female successes, I do think polygamy at times could be an unusual vehicle for greater female autonomy. From the modern peaks that I've seen of polygamy (usually TV) in LDS couples that aren't super crazy...I think the dynamics in the marriage relationships aren't that easily simplified. In someway the male influence is also reduced as he's spread thin between 4 spouses. I think the dynamics of polygamy can increase the likelihood of conflict in family. This I don't have a ton of proof of...it just seems obvious. You add more people, you'll add more mess. It depends on what is meant by patriarchy. I don't think it's necessarily a natural outflow. In societies that are extremely sexist/patriarchal...they can also generally be monogamous (such as many asian cultures). They may have a mistress, but that is not the same as what you're describing. As for me, I do not assume that I will have to share my hypothetical husband with another woman. I think of polygamy as the rare exception to the general God-ordained pattern of one woman to one man set up from the beginning of time. I believe in the Book of Mormon assertion that 9 times out of 10 it's an abomination before God. But that sometimes in rare circumstances with specific parameters He may allow it to happen. I don't know what that means for polygamy, polyandry, and any complicated sealing patterns that exist in the eternities. I do know we'll be one family in the end....so whatever reshuffling that will inevitable have to happen, I figure it will make sense then, if it doesn't now. With luv, BD
  5. Yes. But This isn't a good comparison for what I've been discussing. Questioning evolution as a "theory" and main principle in life sciences would be similar to questioning whether Depression really exists. I'm sure you can find plenty of people (usually with little background in psychological fields) who would state such. But the field I work in is still fairly avant garde, in the sense that the research in it is still minimal and our understanding heavily based in our own exposure and preconceptions. So there is space for a number of conflicting ideals and approaches and there's space to rearrange and look at our own biases in this. In a way this would be how we APPLY the general models/principles of psychology to the public. Just as how we APPLY the principle of evolution varies and in certain circumstances can even contradict a bit. Psychology is not written in stone. Nor is science for that matter. You keep treating it as though it's this concrete absolute thing. But it's not. There's varying view points and varying models and varying therapists who use such in sometimes very different ways. This strikes me as ironic. That you admit knowing very little about therapy, but feel pretty solid in questioning my approaches and thoughts about it. AASECT is. But that doesn't make it God or susceptible to biases. It's like how major health organizations and research into health can be influence by those who sponsor them. I'm not asking you, though, to "trust" me over them or them over me. I read their stuff and benefit from their members. I appreciate looking at differing perspectives and thoughts. Instead of assuming it's an issue of one must be right and the other wrong, think of it as having different view points that may both have validity, biases, and blindspots. With luv, BD
  6. Finally have had more than a few minutes to catch up on stuff. My gosh, this week was busy. I agree it's a lot about underlying assumptions. I picked out a few themes that seemed extremely pride-oriented to me. Most of them were in their assumptions as why poor or rich may have these results, as you noted they marked an automatic judgment of the poor. But equally important to me it also showed underlying values and assumptions. I saw an extreme individualism that meant the individual was all in it for themselves. THey literally said something like this at the end of their video. This removes social responsibility towards the community or the world. And some of the manifestations of this also seemed to encourage removing oneself from your community or poor people in order to be successful. This was to follow self-oriented interests above all else. This also ignored the fact that the majority of the "very rich" could be such without the poor working low-end jobs. Along with this is that it removes culpability for the continued disparities that are growing between poor and rich. Instead of it being about potential laws, social, and corporate structures that may be reducing social mobility...it's about individual choice solely. The poor just self-sabotage, in their minds. THey do give lip-service right at the beginning for circumstances that may be out of ones control, but that's the last time it's even mentioned. Lastly it promoted a superficial, work for me, sort of religiosity. If it can be used to get ahead, do it. If not, then don't bother. Overall, it showed an self-oriented, vanity based seeking of money, power, and prestige. With luv, BD
  7. Was this guy a psychiatrist or a doctor? I'm so glad I can't despense drugs. They've been helpful for a few of my clients, particularly when they're veering non-functional by depression or anxiety. But sometimes they barely do anything because it's not really their problem in the first place. Both aren't necessarily in depth sources. They collect what they need to diagnose the symptoms and that's about it. The complexity of the story by them can easily be missed. There's a couple things that are very odd about that situation. For one, in therapy at least, you're supposed to avoid duel relationships as much as possible. If you had come to me in similar circumstances I would have tried to explain this, suggest referral, and if there wasn't another therapist available at that point (say if you live in a rural area with few resources or something), then take you on with some serious boundaries and expectations. (((reading your response to Calm, I can see why he may have felt ok taking you on.....but it's still something to do with great hesitancy))). For another, with anxiety medications, most starting prescriptions should start out low and then adjust as they go. And another, I'm not at all impressed by how he handled the situation. Quite the opposite. It vaguely disgusts me. In part because it definitely feels like he was taking an expert role in therapy and in doing so, wasn't really listening to you or allowing space to believe he was wrong or change course. For another, if religion is brought up, you're to follow the CLIENT's lead, not your own. If it makes you feel any better I have never ever given an interview even close to what you described, nor would I. It's unethical, IMO, again breaching the construct of duel relationships or roles (bishop/doctor), among other things. Plus some of the stuff you're describing in his reasoning is bump-kiss. It's just not accurate and based on his perception...not fact. Mormon anxiety is no more fancy than non-mormon anxiety. In that it's multifaceted and may have differing roots...between hormones, social circumstance (family, work, peer stress), cognitive distortions, etc. Church can play a role, sure. But I don't get why he'd need to check out your sin forecast. For example, I've been working down irrational anxiety this week. It's completely hormonal and based off of PMS. I know it'll be flushed out soon. I've also had mild anxiety after severe emotional distress in the past for brief stints. Neither of these warrant needing medication. And even if it did, it's a myth that mormons don't self-medicate. We do...just not with drugs usually. I'm sure he tried to explore some parameters, but it sounds like he had a good amount of preconceived notions going on in that went unchecked. No bueno in my book. We all have biases that we need to be aware of so that what happened to you is less likely to occur. I'm sorry you had such a rough experience. I can understand your hesitancy. I've been to several therapists for my own stuff. They were probably all LDS (they were all at BYU or my mission) and followed differing models to therapy. The first was terrible. I was overwhelmed with family drama and had never spoken to anyone....ANYONE about it. So I went to this guy about it, opening up for the first time in my life. I stuck with small details, because he'd mentioned up front about needing to report certain things. This made me immediately cautious because I was very protective of my family. Then he suggested I go to group therapy. As in spill your guts to a group when it already took all of my guts to do it to one man in confidentiality. And lastly, he then became preocuppied about me being mixed. I had no problems tied to my racial identity at that time. He was barking up the wrong tree entirely. Cruddy professionals just happen. Plenty. For what it's worth. If you had been my client, I would have talked religion about as much as you did. Ie. if you asked, brought up some sort of spiritual based coping tools, talked about it particularly in your development of anxiety, etc. If you brought it up mostly in passing, I would have left it in passing. Side note: I'm glad you listened to the spirit....it sounds like it probably saved your life With luv, BD With luv, BD
  8. You've had several people give really good responses to several of these points. It's been a very busy end of the week with work, so I'm not going to focus on all that you've mentioned here. There's only 2-3 things I want to say 1.) It took a long time to realize that your actual concern with what I was saying was about what I said about religion/spirituality in therapy. I couldn't tell, because you largely went after my credentials to speak on this subject more than anything else. This is the 2nd or 3rd time that you've done this in a debate. To me, it's not much more than a character attack than really addressing the message itself. I don't appreciate having to explain WHY I can make statements over and over again as opposed to focusing on WHAT I'm actually stating and addressing that. If you disagree, disagree. And give evidence for your disagreement (such as the man you mentioned). That's your right. But please stop focusing on my actual credentials to this subject. 2.) What I've stated about AASECT has been purposely tentative because of my limited interactions (an email list and relays from my boss). I'm hoping to go to their conference in colorado next year, but what I heard mentioned, is in someway that the overarching messages that AASECT has promoted can be alienating to others with differing viewpoints. They hold underlying assumptions as fact or "right." And because of that there are varying viewpoints that automatically become questionable or "wrong." Evidence-based theory is apart of any model of therapy at some point, but models and guilds can end up adopting mindsets and policies that can shape that evidence. From what I've heard they used to be more pluralistic in thought. 3. Religion and spirituality CAN be an asset in therapy. Just as culture, community, etc can also be. Just the other day I watched that with someone who is generally spiritual but not religious by any means and another who is Mormon. This is being recognized more and more. A quick google search can show several papers discussing this very concept. And, as I mentioned, the topic of spirituality in therapy was part of the AAMFT national conference roster a couple years back. Some therapeutic programs such as AA rely heavily on spiritual constructs. Of course some therapists would be very opposed to it. I'm not one of them. BUT this isn't the same way of bringing up spirituality in say, church, as it is in my office. It's working within their spiritual/religious constructs to explore ideas or concerns and to find positive messages and tools within both to help them heal. I follow their lead to whether or not it's a part of topics open for discussion. They're generally taking the lead and you work hard to make it clear if you have a suggestion that it's just that....a suggestion. Not necessarily an edict or correct...just something possible. One of the ways I differentiate from something more fact based v. opinions that may have some spiritual underpinnings in my practice is to label some thought I have as coming from the "Book of BD." I'll joke, if they're religious, that it's an apocryphal work, not yet added to holy writ (I joke a lot in therapy...so my clients are used to me being a little frivolous as is). After giving an opinion, I'll ask what they think. Sometimes they like it, sometimes it doesn't fit. I don't push it if it doesn't fit. It's just an opinion after all. I can see why bringing religion for therapists who are more directive or medical in model would be hard. Bringing up spirituality generally means needing to level down and place yourself in a very exploratory, curious, and non-expert role. I don't see myself as the dispenser of truth and facts in these spaces. I see myself as walking with them to explore how their current experience can better fit in their paradigm and move forward. People who get caught up in being the expert in the room may not like this. But I don't mind and never have. But I take a lot from post-modern models, such as narrative and experiential, that take the role of therapist as more of a facilitator than a director....though the nature of sex therapy does entail some directive roles at some point. ****I find that limiting, but you are welcome to do so any way you want. With luv, BD
  9. I think that's a fair struggle. Something that I find helpful is to think of oneself more as a way station. In the sense that I can help them reorganize/lighten their baggage a bit but I have no real say as to their ultimate destination. That's up to them. I also heard it described as helping them receive more light as they're willing. So if, in your example, they desire to have a same sex partner, helping them at least reduce overtly destructive patterns with drugs, or unsafe sexual behaviors, or excess meaningless sexual relationships, or choosing partners who fuel their own dysfunction would still be a monumental growth and receptionn of light and goodness. If they can get to a stable life practice that is ultimately more than they previously had it opens a doorway that one day, maybe, other forms of goodness and change may come in their lives. as well, I think it helps to recognize the limitations or the actual scope of my influence. I don't think I will be under condemnation if they choose whatever they choose. If I've done my best to introduce even a little more light or health or goodness into their life that is a good thing and of God. If they reject it, that's their choice to make. With luv, BD
  10. According to the about section in youtube it's this: There website is.....welllll.....it kinda looks like the rameumptum entered a luxury goods store. With luv, BD
  11. So this is tangentially related to the post above. It just reminded me of the old school Pride to beware of in the BoM and because they were actually serious, it made it somehow funny in a dark way:
  12. Dang! That one takes the win IMO.
  13. AASECT may have its own problems with group think. I hesitate to say this because I do so 3rd person from my boss. But the sort of people AASECT currently attracts are not neccessarily representative. It leans really really heavily one way. And because of that it's not balanced in perspectives and outlooks. So yeah, they agree on some things....but that's not saying much, because a good chunk of them are very like-minded already. And yes, you may definitely have problems with selection bias. People have point out other research or even the same research that contradicted your point and I've seen you not take that into consideration. Honestly the only reason I can think that you're consistently poking at my credentials, qualifications, or whatever you're doubting is because I'm not saying what you'd expect/like me to say on topics. It's not propoganda, it's just popular bias and leanings. This isn't you or anyone can escape. Focusing on expert is a form of level shifting. That's not at all what I said in the first place. Secondly, as calm pointed out to you there's not exactly a set standard for what that means. There's no set of qualifications that equal "expert" in the mental health fields. The google definition of "expert" is this: a person who has a comprehensive and authoritative knowledge of or skill in a particular area. By that definition I probably qualify in the field that I work with. I am not an expert in certain fields of study in the mental health field. For example I've referred out for someone who needed specific treatment for sexual offenses who needed court mandated therapy. I'm not an expert on that. I've answered your questions and this is probably a major derailment of the thread. So we should probably get back on topic With luv, BD
  14. I'm both. I'm a licensed MFT who specializes and generally works with Sexual dysfunction and problems. There isn't a specific license to be a sex therapist. They're not the same thing. MFT is my license Sex therapy is my specialty. BYU has the #1 MFT program in the United States....so you're skepticism isn't exactly warranted. And different areas of study focus in different areas and have different perspectives. I have differing perspectives from my peers and boss. My boss has different views from many (most) in AASECT. We both have differing perspectives from a number in UT who largely focus in other areas of sexual concerns (such as out of control sexual behavior or porn/sex addiction....depending who's describing it). It's a myth that we all come to basically the same conclusions and understandings about the same topics. My views aren't inherently wrong/incorrect, they're from a different perspective. If you're skeptical because of UT or BYU that's your own bias. It doesn't change my credentials and validity as a mental health professional in the least. Many of the views that are easily accessed by the main public are not representative of all actual therapists. There's a wide range of beliefs and thoughts and theories floating about. Some of the most popular or infamous fall into specific camps of thoughts. This doesn't make them more valid because they've caught popular attention. It just means they're interpreting things from their own experience, field, biases, and interpretation of observations and research. It's not necessarily confirmation bias. With luv, BD
  15. TSS is right about MD. Medical professionals are not necessarily the same or well trained in mental health concerns. And no, AASECT certified therapists aren't necessarily the best therapists. They're more likely to have experience and some sensitivity/SAR's training that other therapists don't receive. A number of schools don't have even a single sexuality class in their grad program (BYU does for the record). But it honestly offers little more beyond what experience and a supervisor who works with sexual concerns can't give. AASECT people also don't have to be therapists to join. They also train sexuality "educators." Most therapists I know simply aren't well equipped to handle sexual problems or to address them in couples. They lack the training, comfort, and exposure. So the certification gives an easy indicator that they've had some basic level of training or exposure to this field. I do have training in this, receive adequate supervision, and the vast majority of my clients are dealing with sexual concerns of some sort. Plus, it's pretty easy to tell this is my area of expertise by the company name. This is why it doesn't offer much for me, minus a large bill. Well you could google what a mental health professional is for starters. Like wikipedia's explanation: "A mental health professional is a health care practitioner or community services provider who offers services for the purpose of improving an individual's mental health or to treat mental disorders. " Later down they list common degrees for varying branches as a mental health professional. MFT is one of them. I'm not exactly sure what you're missing. I got my degree, applied for associate license, took the test, and am well on my way to the 4000 hrs I need in the state of UT to be and LMFT. That's how And the way that state laws are set up means that each state have different licensing laws or qualifications. THey're generally pretty close in expectations, but the legal side means you have to meet those. So moving to another state doesn't make me not a therapist, magically. It usually means that I will need to take and exam or something like it to be re-lisenced in another state....or in layman's terms receive permission to practice in that specific state. So yeah, I'm a mental health professional. With luv, BD