Jump to content

BlueDreams

Members
  • Content count

    3,240
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4,981 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

2,423 profile views
  1. BYU rape case defendant aquitted

    No, not exactly. I would strongly recommend reading the book Missoula to have a picture of what happens with rape cases. They're several problematic areas that lead to rape going uncharged.
  2. BYU rape case defendant aquitted

    I'm not surprised it was aquitted. Sorry that it was....but not surprised. Our judicial and police system is simply not well equipped for processing and convicting rape cases. with luv, BD
  3. Modesty standards

    I have a problem with the bolded statements. The body is meant to be sexual and is a divine part of it. "Not sexualizing it" to me is a form of repression that can lead to people feeling disconnected or uncomfortable in their sexuality. I've seen this happen before, particularly for women, pretty dang often. "Sexualizing it" to me makes about as much sense as it does to say "photosynthesizing plants." I don't see sexual expression, including attractive clothing choices, as objectification in and of itself. I like the guide to the scriptures definition to modesty: Behavior or appearance that is humble, moderate, and decent. A modest person avoids excesses and pretensions. With luv, BD
  4. Hearing from women who have been abused

    I think it's a bit of a reinforcing cycle. The cultural influences that allow assault or harassment are there with or without porn. It can just bolster the attitude when it is present. I think it's overarching messages about gender, women's sexuality, etc that fuel it. with luv, BD
  5. Hearing from women who have been abused

    They can express it, they just can't assume that it's women and girls who should fix it. I've had several people who were sexually triggered by me in office. The first time it happened the person mentioned my clothing choice. I had a minute where I really thought about changing my outfits on certain days to "make it easier." But when I thought about it, really thought about it....I realized making it easier didn't necessarily help the person struggling to learn to control their sexual desires. That was something they had to learn from themselves. The longer I've gone the more I've realized that when someone feels like the sexual desires and fantasies are running them uncontrollably, it has absolutely nothing to do with me and everything to do with their mental states. They need to grow, work through their hang ups, and change...not me. Smac, what I find frustrating about this, isn't even how wrong you are on this. I wish I could make you take my clients with PTSD, anxiety, panic disorders, and depression who've been raped, assualted, coerced, and/or abused. Have you listen to hours and hours and hours of the same dam story over and over again. The patterns are so clear with many of them that I can tell their story for them with little change beyond their face. To have to go and work through the hours and hours and hours and hours more of therapy that it takes to restore the lost parts of their souls. The LONG process it takes for them to learn to trust men again after the 3rd predator in their life has sucked them dry. The painful walk of helping them name what happened to them....to help them know what wasn't their fault (they very rarely jump to blaming the perp. They're more likely to blame themselves). The rage that flows in you as few of these get prosecuted, victim-blaming abounds, and shame is confused as guilt by leaders parents and loved ones...and then using that rage to fight against what seems like fated helplessness due to an ill-equipped, ill-informed, and perp-enabling society. And finally to help the ones stuck in perpetual poor relational decisions get out one hard step at a time. I wish you could because at that point I would really hope you'd finally hear us women. Hear and understand how absolutely off base your comments are. Their is nothing irrational about their fear. Irrational fears are fears for things that are super unlikely to happen. My friend's fear of all dogs harming her...including Pomeranians...that's irrational. The fear of assault, coercion, and harassment aren't. They happen at alarming rates. 1 in 5-6 women (depending the citing) will be raped in their lifetime. 43-44% of women will experience some form of sexual violence in the US (see here). That's an epidemic of serious emotional consequence. Your analogy falls so off base I don't even know where to start. So you may just want to start by listening and really getting to know the breadth and depth of this problem rather than reacting and making unfounded claims/strawmen. With luv, BD
  6. Hearing from women who have been abused

    I wish I'd thought that far. I kinda forgot that I've never told my mom some of this and she flew off the handle for a moment. Talking to her also reminded me other forms of sexual harassment as a young teen I kind forgot about. I realized I had quite a bit of it, but I just shoveled it away. With luv, BD
  7. Hearing from women who have been abused

    It's absolutely prevalent. With men in my office I'm more likely to talk about porn history. With women in my office I'm more likely to hear stories of assault. Harassment doesn't generally register unless it was extremely explicit. I remember from time to time a man with his spouse listening to his wife's tales of abuse. Some of these men, becoming aware of the situations facing women become irrate, horrified and flustered. It's like their world is spinning upside down and their desire to protect their wife driven helpless. The wife and I usually share a knowing glance and shrug. It says welcome to being a woman, you can't protect us from this. Their world turned upside down and dangerous is just the one we've been navigating for ages. Denial and that hope for exaggeration is one of the reasons I'm glad for this going trend right now. It's not just men who want to pretend this isn't happening. It's women. And it's women who've been victimized. I know because it's been my job, more than once, to help a woman understand that she was assaulted or raped. Most just don't want to believe it. I know because I still have a hard time admitting that I was sexually assaulted when I was 13. I call it "assault light" half the time. More than half the time. Because it doesn't count for "real assault." I didn't have bruises or was battered just chronically leery in hallways all the time. He had more scars from when I'd kick or scratch him (I've always been a fight not flight sort of person). He would call me catwoman and would make it somehow part of his nasty sexual game. But it was still assault. Discrediting just makes it easier to hide from the faults in our society that are pervasive, real, and sick. With luv, BD
  8. Hearing from women who have been abused

    I'll post what I posted on FB: On the mormon note, for our credit, I've had the least amount of direct sexual harassment in an LDS context. So I generally feel safe at church and completely safe in the temple. The biggest problem I see is blindness to the problem of those who've been abused, understanding what this form of abuse does to victims, and inadvertently enabling the perpetrators of said crimes. Enabling can include justifying their behaviors by blame shifting onto the victims (it wouldn't have happened if she did x,y,z...we women have a responsibility to help or control men's thoughts like their helpless babies to our bodies), it can be turning a blind eye to inappropriate comments, it can be by overextending mercy with little account to justice or accountability (ie. enabling) the perps. Though we have little overtly visible acts of assault and harassment, it means that what does happen remains quiet and behind closed doors. It remains silent. With luv, BD
  9. As am I still learning. I knew my temple shift was today, so I went and talked to the temple recorder about the differences between the women and men's initiatory for about 20 minutes. It was a great discussion and obviously most of it I can't share here. He had his conclusions (which were similar to some of the ones you mentioned), I had my own thoughts, and there were several of both our thoughts that intersected and had common ground. The actual ceremony still doesn't ring right to me when interpreted in the way that you've ascribed. It feels like folk doctrine to me. Such an interpretation lends to or maintains placing women on pedestals and benevolent sexism. I think that's continued because in part we live in a sexist world and in part because men, in callings such as recorders, have often been the ones with major access to both ceremonies in full and the ones told to turn to if there's questions about it (women are sometimes told to go to the matron....but I've heard it more to the presidency or the recorder). What that leads to is a male-dominated orientation to understanding the temple ceremony. Tying this to the first article, it's just as problematic as having a white dominated perspective on the gospel and race. Not only does this effect the faith oriented interpretations of the temple, I think some of the criticism of the temple is actually more so criticism of this male-dominate lens that we all in some ways have been led to peer through. My initial thoughts I can share is that to me the structure indicates that women are given a specific gift in cleansing that is necessary for our role on earth in direct tangent and partnership with the men's specific duties and roles....all under the power and order of our Heavenly Parents or the Priesthood. This gift for women is needed for their direct roles that are correlated in scripture to Christ's purpose and the plan of salvation overall. I also find it a particular mercy to women. The blessings of cleansing and power within our bodies particularly touched me as I've thought about the disproportionate amount of abuse, assaults, injury, perpetual beratement about our bodies, and general degradation women face in this fallen world. To be told what we are in washing to me felt like a mercy. Like having the inordinate amount of hidden tears, scars, and filth forced upon our bodies from this fallen world be removed here and now...to partially have Christ wipe away the pitfalls of inequality there as He will fully do in our resurrection to come. Anyways, what I've learned today was helpful and will be something that I'm pondering for a while to come. With luv, BD
  10. Sure I'd contact them...I'll start with Elder Bednar. It was listening to his talk that first qued me to the difference a few years back. It's one of those distinctions that stuck with me. I found this ironic because you were using Gray's spiritual stance as a means to de-legitimize his stance or perspective. That's a form of ad hom attack. And in doing so, ya placed yourself in a doctrinally superior position about scripture....when the scriptural reference to the iron rod talks of clinging to a group that ends up falling away. Don't get me wrong, there's plenty I disagree with Gray on and obviously I think I'm more right (sorry Gray ). But I don't usually have to bolster my claims by becoming judge of his spiritual journey while pointing out how hard I "cling" to the gospel....particularly when the original scriptural reference doesn't have the best end for those clinging. And maybe that's not what you meant, but it's how it reads and the irony of it just tickled me pink. Putting specifics aside in these circumstances and scriptures can be a really poor idea. It's what helped get us to the priesthood ban in the first place. The context is vital for a correct understanding. For example this ignores that at this time there's a strong likelihood that priesthood was in large part determined on birthright. As the first article points out there's a world of difference between one having something and all other's not....versus all having something but one not. This was a patriarchal order to priesthood which meant several more didn't have the priestly duties/ties. And pointing out that they didn't have this patrilineal claim is pertinent for the story of Abraham because his father was led to follow their competing order of patriarchal authority and Abraham would end up seeking the true order of God rather than the earnest but corrupted order of the pharaoh. Lineage at that time really counted because it decided who had right to lead the people or partake in certain orders. You see that in modern scriptural orderings around the role of bishop, where the right to be called a bishop is still tied to who descended from Aaron OR those who were ordained the Melc. Priesthood. My claim isn't that lineage doesn't have effect or weight in scripture or even today. But that HOW we went about interpreting that pertinence was misapplied, misconstrued, and clouded over by racism and reading race into lineage. For example I'm described as as in the tribe of Ephraim by birthright (and it specifically say by birthright) in my PB....but you better believe that if I were born to the same parents 50 years back that would have never been written. Our understanding of lineage drastically shifted as removed falsehoods from our understanding of it, opening us to see better. Prior readings also ignored that lineage only went so far in determining who had access to the blessings and partaking in the priesthood...which was far broader than just the primary patriarch or priest class of that time. There is more fluidity determined by righteous turning towards God's ways even in the times of lineage-based priesthood found in scripture than was/is given credence. With luv, BD
  11. What keeps you from doing service?

    Honestly, I feel like my job is a form of service and the idea of serving more often makes me feel tired unless that service entails minimal human interaction. Plus the inconsistency of my schedule can make it hard to work around service oppurtunities. I went to, the JustServe website wanting to do more. And the ones I most qualified for sounded like an extension of my job. There were a few others that I could have probably done...it just didn't seem the right season in my life for them. Oh, and time. Like everyone else. Probably a little selfishness in there too. With luv, BD
  12. Would you worship a God who commanded lying?

    To the title question: I worship a God who has commanded killing people. Why in the world would I have a problem with a God who may or may not command lying? For the record: I have never been commanded to murder and I've never been commanded to lie. I assume all such situations would be rare as they would be contextual exceptions. With luv, BD
  13. Yes it would still be objectionable for these points: 1. It's maintaining a false understanding of priesthood curses in the scriptures. 2. It ignores that New Testament edict about access to the gospel. 3. It ignores now and current revelation. 4. It creates an unnecessary stumbling block to the ultimate purposes of the Gospel: to bring all to Christ and to receive all that He has and is. As well as to receive the gospel in to our hearts and to grow line-upon-line in knowledge. The temple and priesthood blessing being imperative for such edicts 5. It would be a breeder of false doctrine and misapplication of obscure scriptures to justify a false practice. You're not clinging to the iron rod, you're clinging to common historical misreadings of the scriptures. I've read those scriptures very thoroughly more than once. In fact I've read all the ones that entail a cursed lineage more than once. In the BoM especially the curse was removed simply by repentance. In the PoGP the curse was maintained in large part as the people continued to follow the false doctrinal traditions of Cain. You see that in the story of Lamech...who is a decsendent of Cain, but is cursed once he enters into (and tries to enhance) the secret combination started by Cain (see Moses 5:52-54). I don't deny that they were cursed. All were cursed as to the blessings of God if they followed derivatives of this wickedness (Moses 5: 55-57). I believe the BoA/M, BoM, and Bible. I believe that it hold no actual relevance to African-based populations pre-'78 and now. I believe that the priesthood ban was bolstered by a common false misinterpretation of said scriptures. It was holding fast to the iron rod that led me to the conclusion that how those scriptures were used were because of racism and the errors of man. Just an ironic aside: in Lehi's dream those who clung to the rod were those who became ashamed of partaking. Those who held fast were those who stayed with partaking in the delights of the fruit. Just saying, if you're going to use scriptural phrases to bolster one's scriptural claims and general piety in knowledge over someone else....ya might want to choose the correct phrasing. With luv, BD
  14. I'm a sucker for accuracy and this parallel always drives me a little nuts. Plus the parallel underplays the pain and greater forms of discrimination experienced from the racism and ban in the church at that time. I describe it as cake. Male priesthood access is like a fully decorated cake. Female priesthood access and implementation of said priesthood gifts is like a cake with little to no decorations. Black priesthood access and implementation pre-'78 is like having no cake, but picking up the crumbs and thin slices that were handed from the other cakes. It also ignores what women DO have in terms of priesthood authority and power. Such power and priesthood power to me needs to be recognized to understand the direction we should take as a church to better respond to gendered inequity. With luv, BD
  15. I think it's a fairly common misunderstanding of the temple initiatory blessings. In each part of the initiatory (washing, anointing, and clothing) all blessings promised to women is on the condition of adhering to the gospel of JC and living ones covenants. I should know. I have it memorized. Women don't get more. To state such and the other adage that I've seen on this thread about women being ordained to the priesthood just means more work are both forms of benevolent sexism to me. It's not true, it's just something said to make our current problems among gender roles more palatable. With luv, BD
×