Jump to content

BlueDreams

Contributor
  • Content Count

    3,718
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by BlueDreams

  1. I've been following this thread off and on for several pages and debated whether I should jump in an respond after this many pages. But I figure it can't hurt and I want to try to answer the initial question to this thread. I think of two stories in this topic right now. One was from a church history conference at BYU that talked about women in LDS history. one of the lectures discussed about collecting church history in India and how the current state and handbooks of the church were very empowering for women in a culture that is deeply sexist. They would receive callings such as RS pres or YW leader and be told by their male bishopric that they weren't to do much with these and be able to push back, pointing out that the manuals stated they had xyz responsibilities in the ward. The structure of the church help facilitate a cultural shift for the people that led to more egalitarian practices and beliefs about the role and capacities of women. The other was from my recent stake conference that is still weighing in my mind. Our stake presidency was being released and they had both male and female speakers. The female speakers were all the wives of the men with said callings or the 70 that came. The women's talks were entirely about their husbands or state of their families with little personal references (if any). The men's were about this or that lesson they learned from their calling, the sacred nature of callings, or their personal journeys. It felt (to take a term used by I believe Rain) imbalanced. The women's talks felt like strange prelude introductions to the main course: their husbands. My own husband had a hard time finding the point to one of the sister's talks at all. I empathetically noted that she was likely pointing out aspects that she found spiritual in her life, but didn't know how to fully express it....like if I talked about my garden the entire time, with no explanation as to the spiritual lessons pertaining to it. I didn't feel spiritually enriched by their talks for the most part...and it felt scripted by culture more than gospel in general (both men and women). In this case structure has fallen short in healing our cultural short-comings in the roles and capacity of women. Personally, I am not satisfied with the status quo. When I hear talks in GC and even Ulrich's I feel this itchiness. I can feel something important is missing. Something often feels perpetually off. Sometimes I can name it. sometimes I can't. It's that feeling of having a word on the tip of the tongue. I know the word, but I don't know it right now. So my first response to those that are struggling with this is one of empathy and acknowlegdement that what they're seeing/feeling is valid. I'd also talk about structural and cultural changes. Structural/procedural changes can be very important to help meet the needs of people in the church....but it doesn't always lead to all the changes we desire. To me there have been a number of structural shifts recently to help in the church. Changes in the temple being among the biggest personally. But also in the way women leaders are presented and efforts to try and have more women be visible and heard. A lot of these aren't immediately in our hands to change....nor can we as individuals see exactly what is needed for all the church. It's not possible. I may have great ideas for what could help my area....but I have no clue what challenges or needs are found in other parts of the world and if my great ideas or desires here would translate well be helpful there. That takes other voices having equitable say for the structure of the church (I don't know if that's fully a thing yet...but I still believe they'd need to have influence and say for the movement of the church).....and acknowledgmeny that my views may not actually be the best method forward for the whole of the church body. It could even be a stumbling block for saints who are still working to change some of their cultural beliefs to align with the gospel more. Culturally though, we do have more say and influence and it can be just as important. Just as structure can influence our culture and our understanding of the Gospel. So can culture influence views and inevitably the structure of the church. That's can be worked on with one person talking, sharing, and expressing concerns. It can happen simply by doing something different....like not following expected narratives for when spouses talk in the same meeting. Or highlighting more women in lessons and scripture study. Or noting and naming what priesthood power and authority women already hold and can exert. And exploring the possibilities for what they could expand in doing that are in place because of culture that has cemented into tradition, expectations, and structure (such as giving blessings....or the other things people have mentioned here). In the end we are not a Zion society just yet....but a balm for me is to realize just how much I can be apart of helping to create that. To know my talents and capacities and then to actively share them and to shift the narrative for my daughter about her capacities that I didn't initially receive. That does't happen by ignoring our concerns...but leaning into them and patiently exploring them. With luv, BD
  2. Often times my clients. Here and there as cautionary tales, but also those who shine and become living examples of truth or goodness. I remember one lady after struggling through some traumas and coming to a better peace about them stated that she guessed she needed the pains to know the good and basically quoted a verse in 2 Nephi. Knowing that she was LDS I mentioned it, assuming she’d read it and was connecting it to her life. She hadn’t, but her life experience became its own testament of it. Beyond that, random books. A different client recommended i read this book called “how to be sick” which takes buddhist principles and applies it to chronic illness. I’m not chronically ill, but I ended up enjoying the audible read of it. One thing i’ve used currently when i’m getting overwhelmed in a moment is to take an observer approach and just name what’s actually happening. So instead of, say, getting flustered about a child who won’t be soothed. I say to myself “woman tending a crying child”...it strangely works in calming me. I also like the activity of 5 minutes of doing absolutely nothing. I try that particularly while breastfeeding to turn off the ever present distractions towards the present moment. Call the midwife also has sweet messages. And when in doubt, google. 😋 With luv, BD
  3. I’d agree. I also call it the fairy tale variety. And i do mean it in a more derogatory sense. Or at least the incredulous version. FWIW I never really subscribed to the experience of courtship and marriage that i ended up getting. I thought people who married basic strangers were foolish and that you can’t really be in love...you were really in lust or infatuation. I would have probably mostly agreed with your paradigm.... until God did a number on me. Now i think my paradigm is that of following God and letting that path unfold as it will. For some that may very well entail the method of love and revelation that you described. For others it may look entirely different. it may entail something altogether different. Tying back to using the spirit in manipulative fashion. I think part of that is assuming a one-size-fits-all paradigm. As in how one assumes the spirit must interact with people must be exactly the same and make sense to our understanding. I think in that assertion it’s far easier to try and insist our hopes and expectations on another With luv, BD
  4. Oh he wasn’t my boyfriend. Ever. He was just a friend that kept developing crushes on me over several years. No matter how much i would reassert that I wasn’t interested in him like that, it would happen again. The last one was the only one he interpreted his spiritual answer to stay friends with me to possibly mean we’d end up together. i personally don’t doubt that he received revelation to stay friends with me...i doubted his interpretation of what that meant for us long-term. I’m not sure what you mean by revealing our own truth. What does that look like to you? For me when I finally did meet my husband we had a very very short dating period...of which I wasn’t dating him exclusively and neither of us would consider ourselves bd/gf. I don’t think the opinion you gave fits my personal experience. The experience was inherently spiritually contrived and strongly confirmed. The short story is that our future daughter helped set us up. And in the temple when i went to confirm it i came away knowing that what i was receiving was a gift from God. And that i would need go treat it as such. I don’t know how marriage partners work with God...or even if it’s the same thing for each person. For me I didn’t describe him as a soul mate. But I definitely felt like i knew him for far longer than i did. I described him as my PB Did: my best friend...for longer than the 13 days we dated before getting unofficially engaged. with luv, Bd
  5. Yes. I still remember meeting the first person in therapy who was genuinely manipulative. He would find ways to turn whatever problems there were in his marriage back on his wife...including when he had an affair. I’ve met a few who were very obviously manipulating to try and get what they want. Often to try and avoid consequence or accountability for their actions. Or to control another. I think many in the moment don’t write themselves as the bad guy per se....though some do through moments of shame. Luckily they’re rare, IMO There are those who i’m sure definitely don’t mean to be manipulative of course. with luv, BD
  6. Funny enough, i had some version of number 1 happen to me. It was a friend at the time who liked me and i was oblivious to the fact up until a month before he told me himself. I had somewhat off handedly sought to know that he wasn’t it, not expecting much an answer because I wasn’t interested in him and had never felt anything past platonic affection towards him. Instead i felt very strong this “no” answer which surprised me that it was so clear and certain. It happened one more time when i was frustrated and down about a guy i was in love with at the time. When my friend finally told me his feelings i went through every rational reason on earth as to why this wouldn’t work. None of them mattered because he felt he’d had a prompting we were to be together. He then went with “have you ever prayed about it?” I could confidently answer that I had and God said nope! I soon decided it would be best to end the friendship, which he didn’t take well. Needless to say i never married him. Having one of those experiences and knowing a little background as to his answer from God. I do think he genuinely had a spiritual experience...but i think his hopes and desires led to a major misinterpretation. He wasn’t a bad guy, he just hopes beyond what God promised. On the other points, i think our tendency to get stuck in expectations tends toward these type of responses. Whether that be learning that only certain feelings are good or that the best form of spiritual expression is formal and silent. I dont know if most of them are trying to be manipulative. They’ve just gotten to the point of religious zealousness that is overbearing as we put our expectations onto another unnecessarily. As for the salesman, If i’d felt snarky, i may have said “i do want the spirit in my home...which is why I don’t want your priestcraft on my doorstep.” Then shut the door. Jerk doesn’t have an excuse beyond wanting some sales. The again, i also just don’t enjoy a ton of cliche LDS paraphernalia around my house With luv, BD
  7. Racism can definitely exist without hate...though it can increase the likelihood that one will vilify the “other.” I’ve seen people show racist or ethnocentric beliefs and perspectives but they may not hold outward anger towards said groups of people. In fact i would say most of the racism i’ve felt hasn’t been with a form of malice behinde it I don’t think there is ever a time when true racism is appropriate. i don’t think this story represents actual racism by Jesus. I’ve often thought of this story and the contrast it has from that of the centurion and the parable of the good samaritan. Both would have been considered outsiders to the jewish community. Yet with the centurion he immediately said he’d go to his house and heal his servant. When the centurion insists he just heal from afar, Jesus says: “10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. 11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” In short he knew that the earthly separations of people on earth had no real baring or place in the kingdom of god. The good samaritan also points to a different way of looking at people beyond earth-bound labels of who to associate with And he knew this before calling this canaanite a dog. I think this was more preparatory learning for the disciples...and abrahamic test of the woman. The disciples would late be called to teach people that they wanted tk see go away from them without healing. I think he was mimicking the attitudes of the time to teach them how poor a judge assumptions based on ethnicity were in determining the faith and worth of a soul. It was also a test to her own degree of faith. Would she still see out Jesus even when she felt unwanted by the jews. (Excuse likely grammar errors...on cellphone) With luv BD
  8. I don't know if we could jump to the conclusion that assumed the deaths were condoned by God would mean we believe God's a monster. After all we also believe in a flood that annihilated all the people sans one extended family. I'm sure people could find a way to make it admissible while maintaining a pro-life stance. But I think the questions you ask are likely why I do not see myself as pro-life or pro-choice. Which would mean I somewhat disagree with your first statement as well. At some point the implication of both simplified beliefs become a problem. For example on the pro-choice issue....does this mean that people in India should be able to use ultrasounds to determine sex so they can abort female children? It may go against my or your personal beliefs, but it doesn't the people who are wanting these done. So by this logic, we should allow it despite some serious long-term problems this leads to as a whole. Should special needs children, who could live a full, though different life, be aborted and virtually disappear from our societies (as is happening in iceland with downs children)? Maybe this doesn't have as great of an immediate effect as aborting based on gender, but it's still something of a concern and the decision one way or another is often based in moral and value systems. And indeed allowing said practices would likely form and shape later value systems. For the record, when I say balancing pragmatism and compassion towards life, I don't mean that there should be no limitations to abortion. I do, particularly after the point viability (roughly 23 weeks). I think the amount of legislation should be limited ....but I still think it should be there. For example, allowance of abortion based on personal decision sans unwanted though generally harmless traits pre 20 weeks and abortions for medical reasons allowed post 20....while making it more feasible for mothers in difficult circumstances to feel like they actually have a choice in keeping and supporting their child through assistance programs. This would not be considered, in our current climate, pro-life or pro-choice, but somewhere in between. With luv, BD
  9. I definitely don’t hold holy envy on this note. I knew a catholic couple who struggled with fertility. Luckily for them, in vitro worked like a charm. But because they were staunch catholic, they believed they needed to give every last blastula a chance. They ended up with a plethora of children and a fried marriage as they went on survival mode for several years trying to care for a severely special needs child and raising multiples. Ascribing cold blooded killers to those who decide not to use every split-celled human organism in a freezer during their family planning seems excessive. But oddly we don’t even really talk about that as much in an abortion debate...because it’s not an abortion. It’s a frozen set of cells with minimal development that has a decreased odds of viability each month/year its frozen. Slowly killing or reducing a person’s ability to live often is considered torture. But again...not described that way. Because it’s not. Oversimplification doesn’t really help in most cases...it leaves us with a different mess when the complexity of life rudely comes in the way. Along those lines to the main post...that this thread has lasted 12 pages is evidence to me that when does life begin and when does a human life reach personhood have some biological but mostly moral/belief oriented answers. No one has an answer solid enough that another person is satisfied with it who believes differently. People can view and experience the exact same things and still have a different outlook on it. For example, a friend of mine assumed that having a baby would alter my perspectives on abortion (i’m neither pro life or pro choice...more pro pragmatism and balance in compassion). It didnt much...except that I realized that within pragmatic boundaries, i wouldn’t insist another woman to go through these experiences if they really didn’t want to. And that i dont think there’s one specific moment that my baby’s spirit entered her body. To me it felt like weaving a soul. Threads were placed together but a single thread does not make a tapestry, per se. It took time for her to be knit together. I couldn’t tell you exactly when that flipped (probably around the 2nd trimester) and there’s still a deep respect and honor for life in there. It’s that respect for life, bodies, and both the women and the small starts of bodies within them that guide to believe that only a nuanced decision can be had in our fallen world. Beyond that what also establishes my view is working with women in forms of mourning from miscarriage and deaths. It’s simply not the same no matter how short the life of the person that lived. The youngest they were mourning was well shy of a month. With that, they were mourning a person with traits. With miscarriages they were mourning ideas: hopes and desires lost, possibly fear about what this meant for future pregnancies. Still births (in-utero death post 20 weeks) are often a little bit of a mix of these. And this is only miscarriages of wanted pregnancies that were known. A large chunk of early miscarriages are believed to happen before a woman realizes she’s pregnant. In these cases there may not be any mourning at all. With luv, BD
  10. Had to break up my comment for some reason: I also find i can only take so much of the MA/R shows or movies. I can make a couple exceptions at a time, but after a while it starts to get to me a little and i feel “ehh...” like eating too much junk food but for the soul. These shows I especially have to take in chunks and may take long breaks from or only watch while somewhat distracted in another task. Or just stop watching all together. Ratings are fairly arbitrary and R rates are definitely US specific, which is probably why there’s not as much blanket statements and more, “be careful what type of media you take in” sort of message.
  11. Already part of that trend...I never have had cable as an adult. I do watch R’s and MA’s...IBut i’m picky as to which ones and have moments that i’m more sensitive to what’s going on or grow tired of tolerating the more questionable material. For example i’m planning one day to watch “When they see us,” but can’t right now because of postpartum hormones. I found myself really angry and in a funk from the first episode for about a day. I know it’s the subject, not the cussing that got to me. Usually i do my research, see why it’s rated what it is and decide from there. with luv, BD
  12. I remember talking to a guy i was dating a bit about this. He was coming back to church. He Wanted to be LDS, but not 100% sure what that looked like for him. He liked to drink a bit here and there and would often mention how BY had a distillery and that it wasn’t as strictly expected back then and such. I told him something along the lines that it didn’t matter to me what BY did. It was my covenant with God and what hHe asked of me. That i was at a point in my life that if God asked me to jump off a cliff i’d ask “which ons?” So obedience does play a factor in it, particularly with green tea (i’ve had it from time to time mixed in drinks without me knowing and i’ve like those..so i figure i’d like it). At the same time i believe and can see the reasons behind it. And that includes drinks like coffee. I don’t every part if the WoW directly effects my individual health. But that it’s there as a safeguard to others who might have an unexpected issue and probably groups of people as well with some of the practices and social issues surrounding production and distribution over the years. Beyond the don’t’s to the WOW, i do have a diet pretty close to what it proscribes and i feel best when i’m near to it. I’ve seen many of the blessings that are tied to it in my life. I don’t know if there’s a huge danger of doing it because you want a recommend or because it’s what’s expected of us or whatever else. Or at least any more dangerous than other parts of the gospel or church that people do the same thing for. I do think it’s better to truly believe or desire a practice in one’s life, though. With luv, BD
  13. Freeform locs are usually still washed....they’re just not brushed out or purposely patterned. The matting creates the locs over time. That’s on her for not washing. Most do, black or white. With luv, BD
  14. yeah, that reasoning never works for me. I'm too anti-authority in personality for that to roll well with me. I'd start asking to explain where God mentioned this as necessary and point out to the many many examples of bearded long haired men as spiritual leaders and often being commanded or expected to have long hair due to spiritual edicts. I'd also be pretty adament about wanting to know how hair length effects my spouse's ability to bring people to Christ. If I was really in a mood and knew the person well enough to crack a joke, I'd point out that my husband may do better in the being Christ-like, since he so often rocks His style seen in the art With luv, BD
  15. 1.) I obviously don't think racism is simply perceived. There's a difference in questioning between when people ask about my ethnic heritage and when the questions/comments about heritage come with loaded race-based assumptions. I don't have a problem talking about my heritage. I enjoy my many peoples. And if that's where it ended, it would be an enjoyable and reasonable experience. What I get from Tekulve in this article isn't about these questions but the ones laden with assumption. Such as assuming that he must be from a foreign country....often' has an assumption about who would immediately be considered american (usually white). For me there are experiences that make me feel more invisible. Such as when I explain my heritage, and they then refer to me only by one side, because they're used to having nice clean racial categories. Or assuming that my experiences as a mixed woman must be difficult because....well I'm mixed (cue tragic mulatto stereotype here). Or assuming who I should or would date based on race rather than personality and interests based on their expectations on dating cross-racially. I would note that most the racism in UT that I've seen is based more in ignorance and lack of exposure than to open hostility. 2.) That would be a good question to ask him. But a large part of the african diaspora and african-american heritage entail reclaiming experiences and identity that were forcefully lost due to forced migrations, slavery, colonization, and imposing white standards of grooming and dress onto them. Locs are part of the natural hair movement and efforts to reclaim a heritage that entails a heavy focus on hair and removing the idea that "good hair" is closest to white/straight hair styles. (you can also replace good, with "professional, clean/unkempt, etc" and still have the same ethnocentric value standards shine through) Again, I can't answer for him specifically, but here is an article and a video about locs and their significance for african americans...from black sources: Article here: https://www.ebony.com/style/history-dreadlocks/ Lastly assuming equality in an experience and the assumption about cleanliness simply shows a cultural ignorance about black communities and cultures. It's often not the same experience for a black person v white person with a similar hair style. For one, for black people's hair this may be a healthier choice to maintain natural hairstyles v chemical perms/more damaging hairstyles and may link to a cultural and historical experience that's about reclaiming lost heritage. Most white people adopting these styles do it because it looks cool...there's usually little deeper than that to it for them. With luv, BD
  16. Same. I don't get what hair style has to do with the calling. I told my husband they'd have to change to policy if they called him to something like that, because I wouldn't agree to it . I love his hair longer and his face with a little scruff. With luv, BD
  17. This story was a bit of a big deal in some of the black social groups. Before it could be rectified it caused a number of people to actually call the temple (from what i read) and several were very frustrated with the temple president’s initial decision. But it came with a very positive ending and represents to me a part of the cultural church that could be removed. In our stake there’s still this (dumb) expectation that people with certain male leadership callings must be shaved and hair cut short. But beyond hair I think it points to something that i see as a major thrust in President Nelson’s goals and actions: to help better separate church culture from gospel doctrine. I see this in several changes to temple policies to allow more people to serve as temple workers who are otherwise worthy to do so. I also see it in general church initiatives, such as the hymn book, to better represent what people in varying areas view as spiritual. Here I see this sometimes when people often extrapolate what happens in Utah or their own individual ward to represent the whole of the church. It can be a nice reminder that our assumptions based on a geographic location may sincerely not hold in another area or even a ward over. Also liked the quote at the end: The Lord asked us to be one, not to be the same https://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/faith/payson-temple-worker-s-hairstyle-opens-bigger-discussion-on-diversity/article_6c57851c-55f5-5d7f-b3ee-d83decf59063.html?fbclid=IwAR05G_ja6GudYFOatfqvmNVS260xPwhXsGUfrTl49HtsdPXDb0IXF1S7c6M Anyways thought i’d share and see what others here thought of the article. With luv, BD
  18. I see it a bit as both. Something that’s moved to caricature and bigotry based on a very negative personal experience. I’d read her story before (i lurk far more than i post) and knew where it was coming from...but it doesn’t make it excusable IMO. But i do get it. I had an negative experience (nothing abuse oriented, but a really poor end to a friendship). The man in question was a dark black man and for a while i could feel myself being a little avoidant of men that weren’t family that looked like that. I moved passed it...but if i hadn’t and instead began insisting all black men had the negative traits of this ex-friend and kept calling black men by inflammatory language...it would not be excusable. With luv, BD
  19. My weekend got a little chaotic. on my end, I wouldn’t have cared if she said all mormons are blue. It would have been a little funny, but the attribution doesn’t mean anything. pedophilia, unfaithfulness, weaker marriages, etc does have a moral judgment. It’s characterizing a whole group of people negatively in simplified terms. That’s a stereotype and is a form of bigotry IMHO. If the attribution was towards any other group, we would call it as much. That it stems from hurt does not justify stereotyping. That’s my problem. Is she was doing this to some other group, intermingling common caricatures of the group (say catholics, muslims, racial/ethnic groups, etc), i would equally have a problem with it. With luv, BD
  20. Even with those who are mentally ill there is often an understandable reason for their perspective. This doesn’t excuse faulty reasoning and projecting one’s assumptions about a whole group of people onto another. I would call that out in real life as I would here because maintaining said assumptions can inadvertently damage relationships and maintain the false beliefs about a group. If I assumed some negative attribute about a whole religion and its believers...say catholics or muslims or anyone really....it wouldnt be right or okay no matter where that belief derived from. I would hope someone would call me out on that and point out where my beliefs were untrue or even hurtful. I would hope someone would set me straight when I am promoting a black and white and negative caricature of a whole group of people. That’s simply not okay. No matter where it’s coming from. with luv, BD
  21. That is not what i said, changed. That may be what you read into my words, but that’s not what I actually said. This is what i did say: “The effect p*rn has on a relationship is heavily dependent on how the couple view and interact with the p*rn. Some spouses do not feel betrayed at all. Some do initially experience it as a marital betrayal. Most are somewhere in the middle.” “The effect p*rn had on the relationship is not the same from couple to couple based largely on how they view their spouse’s p*rn problem and the ramifications for said problem in their marriage. I have had several couples who are well differentiated, recognize the problem as their partner’s issue to work through, and where there overall relationship is good or positively growing” please show me where i said porn is no big deal to lds couples. Pointing out a diverse set of experience is not the same as giving a blanket shrug into porn. And it sure as heck is not some form of celestial endorsement. I don’t know who you’re dialoguing with when you’re stating these assertions from my posts, but it is definitely not me. I have never -and will never - make the assertions you’re associating to me and my faith. With luv, BD
  22. I was a temple worker up until the birth of my daughter for 7 years. That is absolutely ridiculous. But it's all I'll say on that part of this, because it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. You may think whatever you like. It does not make it true or even an accurate depiction of reality. I work with this population and often on this very issue at hand. In no way have I seen any indication of what you describe here as even remotely describing the LDS couples I see. With luv, BD
  23. I am talking from largely lds couples i’ve worked with where only one partner had a problem with p*rn. The effect p*rn had on the relationship is not the same from couple to couple based largely on how they view their spouse’s p*rn problem and the ramifications for said problem in their marriage. I have had several couples who are well differentiated, recognize the problem as their partner’s issue to work through, and where there overall relationship is good or positively growing. For these, p*rn use most definitely does not have the same effect as an affair. Often the spouse feels little except for concern for their struggling partner. Even for those who do take it as betrayal, the majority of them still dont have the same effect as an affair, having watched the aftermath of both. with luv, BD
  24. That is not always true. The effect p*rn has on a relationship is heavily dependent on how the couple view and interact with the p*rn. Some spouses do not feel betrayed at all. Some do initially experience it as a marital betrayal. Most are somewhere in the middle. and assault rates are not equivalent to porn use. With luv, BD
  25. “The” problem can’t be narrowed to one entity. High religiousity is tied to greater shame toward p-viewing. That much is true. And there are ways that people in the church (and the general leaders, especially back in the day) have put heavy shame messages that have made it worse. There are things that we still do that I think at this point are becoming more cultural than procedural that gives the false impression that viewing p*rn is more of a problem than say lying or any other sin (sans murder and denying the HG). Far from being quiet about it, i think it’s better to talk about it, just in a way that’s more productive and less shaming. I view the site i linked to a positive step in that direction. Though there may be things that the church or it’s members do that don’t help or can exacerbate a problem, they didn’t cause the problem. It is very rare that i hear of someone who heard the term P*rn or m*sturbation from a leader and got curious. More often they were introduced well before then and when they did finally connect it with the terms they then felt terrible, if they didn’t already. Introduction to porn is happening at younger and younger ages and with easier access than ever before. There’s serious concerns about this outside of a religious context. For example one concern is that there’s evidence it’s shifting s*xual behavior of youth to more extreme sexual behaviors. There’s also a concern that p*rn often functions as teens only s*x ed. This isn’t solely a church concern and it’s hard to measure the effect porn has on our societies because it’s so prevalent at this point and a number of other cultural trends are intertwined or running parallel with the development of p*rn. I have seen more of the trend that Calm referred to in the research than i have this. It does happen...usually when their p*rn use is almost entirely shame-induced and their religious voices are the main or only source for shame towards p. But that condition is rare. It’s more common to see people distance themselves from church to mitigate feeling bad about something they can’t seem to get rid of. They can’t remove the p*rn so they begin to remove the religion. Most the time I don’t think its a conscious decision to do so though. with luv, Bd
×
×
  • Create New...