Jump to content

BlueDreams

Contributor
  • Content Count

    3,692
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by BlueDreams

  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. “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
  17. Our neighbors often assume we're not members, so something about us doesn't scream typical LDS....of course that could just be that we go to a spanish ward, so they're not seeing us in their usual 7 blocks of ward attendance . Still its entertaining and my husband especially likes "playing investigator" when he gets the chance. As for unique...my general background and perspective. I don't think that I'm the only member who may have similar traits as I do. But I'm aware that among LDS members in the US it's still not a common experience. uniqueness in and of itself isn't important to me. Rather that who i am and my experiences can be used to help is. With luv, BD
  18. I know i’ve mentioned this before. But that’s easier said than done and assumes the family members want these resources. My problem as a therapist who very much wants to work with the spouse as well when I have an addict in my office, is that the said spouse doesn’t want to come in. Often they see this as their partner’s issue, or they don’t want to deal with the problems it’s caused in themselves, or they don’t fully recognize that it has. Not all the time. Here and there i do meet a partner who is well differentiated from the other and doesn’t take a big effect from their partner’s compulsions. But that’s fairly uncommon. I, their bishop, friends, even their addict spouse may suggest seeking therapy or support groups for themselves. But we can’t exactly push them into it. Also something that is bothering me. You’ve used “addict” and “abuser” interchangeably. This isn’t the case. Most addicts are not abusing a spouse or child. And for that matter, many of the abusers i have had in my office aren’t addicts. There are people who are both, definitely. But one does not warrant the other is happening. Also some of the solutions i’m seeing (not just from you) are oversimplified. When working with either addicts or abuse situations, I don’t have a one-size-fits-all methodology. There are things that are generally needed. Such as boundaries if they’re enmeshed or codependent. Or safety plans if there’s abusive patterns. But sometimes ideals aren’t exactly ideal. For example if there’s a person being abused and I tell them to kick out their partner, it may feel empowering, but i may have inadvertently left them in a vulnerable state. Their partner knows where they live, how to reach them, and already shows a predisposition to breaking boundaries and social norms. At any time their abuser could return to their house and if this partner was physically violent, the other may be at serious risk of harm. Likewise if i tell the partner to think about leaving their abuser sooner than they’re ready to contemplate it, i may end up seeing them leave me or other healthy resources instead to block out the unwanted advice. When a crisis hits, they’re now more isolated and compromised than if I’d worked with them in their marriage as is. For the record: I don’t work usually with current physical abuse. Usually it’s working through the ramifications of previous abuse or concurrent emotional abuse patterns. With luv, BD
  19. Since abuse has been brought up here too. I’d point out that the church also has a site focused on that topic as well in a similar format as the pornography one: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/get-help/abuse/?lang=eng in the resources are the numbers and sites to several abuse crisis hotlines and places to start seeking professional help. With luv, BD
  20. Many of these look similar to the ones integrated in this site: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/addressing-pornography/?lang=eng I was given the site when it was being beta tested by a bishop i worked with. I was initially skeptical because of what i’d seen in the cultural concerns (several of which have already been mentioned)....but i was pleasantly surprised. I generally like the resource. The church is generally fighting concerns and issues that compromises member’s capacity to partake in the gospel. P*rn does that and is a very prevalent concern. So they’re going to fight it. With luv, BD
  21. Welp, that’s definitely not what the church teaches. It’s definitely not what the bishops said or indicated as i’ve worked with them to help their members with problems they know need more than what they can give. I think you are right in that sometimes therapy can lead to a focus or direction that isn’t the right one for a person. Often depression or anxiety or other dysfunctions are more like “common sense”...you won’t feel good in a life that is dissonant with what you believe. You shouldn’t feel good in situations that are in someway harmful. I’m glad that you found the answer that worked for you. But you are not all humanity. Your experiences do no ascribe an edict from God as to the value of what therapists do for everyone else. You are not the prophet... so your opinion - that run counter to official church stances and practices - means very little to me. With luv and a bit of a shrug, BD
  22. The context may help a little to get better why this was inappropriate. The person was obviously not interested in hearing our message. They were being polite in letting us talk but was giving several indications that they were content in their current beliefs and was not interested in our message. The “suspend the beliefs” was asking them to do something the person didn’t voluntarily want to do. That’s not okay. Also to me, voluntarily experimenting upon the word/teachings you’ve heard is different than insisting someone try ro suspend their beliefs. I also preferred to build from where the person was at, find common ground and beliefs and add to them or show how they tie into our message. When there were moments that beliefs diverged, i would share my perspective, why i believed it, etc. I would ask them to study that aspect for themselves. To me this is not “suspending” belief structures. That’s an artificial experience to me. This is helping to facilitate their own organic growth/change in beliefs. Something only they and God can really do. With luv, BD
  23. I generally agree. I would just say, that there are varying approaches to therapy. I'm of the type that thinks it's impossible to really be non-biased and that it's better to recognize one's biases in and outside of therapy to better facilitate therapy. I'm big into bringing myself, as appropriate, into therapy since I'm a big believer that relationships heal and it's easiest to have a relationship with a person rather than a name and title With luv, BD
  24. No, I don't. I'm curious what you even mean by "correct" in this question. My degree is in Marriage and Family Therapy. My bias is helping families stay together as much as I can and generally believe that most couples who enter my office have the capacity for a happy marriage IF they're willing to work through their current hurdles. You simplified my post in a way that I disagreed with because I view it as inadvertently expecting more from the believer than the non-believer. One was being asked to remember a couple positive things from their former religion....which could be as broad as service opportunities and noting a good youth program. The other was being asked to shift their belief structure. When I had a little over-zealous mission companion who told an atheist we tracked into to take a moment and just "suspend her beliefs," I immediately shut down the conversation, apologized to the atheist, and then chatted with my companion as to why that is inappropriate to ask of anyone. In your post, it wasn't an unbeliever being asked to do that, it's the believer....thus why I talked about the believer and what I would do for them specifically that is different from your summary. As to the non-believer, I'd first slow down the believer and help him/her explore the said comments, sighs, etc with both of them to make sure they're both interpretting what they mean in the same way. Often, they're not. It's actually not super common that I have a spouse who's making "comments, sighs, or continually pressures the non-believer." When I do, it's not just in religious matters that things have fallen apart. Usually there's some form of a breach in trust in their relationship as well. The most recent cases where I saw this entail the believing spouse being lied to (usually by omission) in one way or another often for years. I've never had a spouse actively pursue a "rescue mission." The closest to that is when the non-believer views the reach out by well-meaning members as such and the believing spouse feels a need to defend these well-meaning neighbors/ward members, which then makes the non-believing spouse feel as though the believing one cares more about religion than them. Which is almost never true (I can't currently think of a case where that was true....but I'm leaving it open due to a currently spotty memory). Usually the concern or subtle methods to try and push belief or activity is easily fixed by just overtly looking at the believing spouse and empathetically stating something along the lines of "I can't make your spouse believe again, that's not my job and I'm not that powerful" if there's space for a light joke and it's just the believing spouse there, I might also mention that was "satan's plan" anyways. They know this inside and if I have someone really pushing for some form of activity, even if it's superficial....it's usually trying to collect their old life and a form of grief for losing experiences and things they've very much wanted. It's pushing against the sorrow and acknowledging what path they're really on now from what they thought they'd have. My job isn't to fix the believer or non-believer to better "fit"...my job is to fix the marriage. When religion comes up as a problem in the marriage, I address it with them. When it doesn't overtly come up, I don't bother. And there are plenty of spouses that have a spouse in some form of faith crisis/transition/unbelief where it isn't directly affecting their marriage, minus the sadness and confusion that can naturally come from an unexpected change. No you don't. I will answer for myself as I have time (which is limited right now....I have a newborn), but I generally agree with Calm's explanation. She's known me on this board for quite a while (I joined when I was 14...I'm now 31) and I know would take correction if she read me wrong. But in this case she hasn't. Just because I disagree with your wording doesn't mean I "privilege belief." That is jumping to conclusions I never made. And yet several people interpreted my words drastically different from the assumption and direction you took it. My clients generally know my biases when a topic is brought up. I don't hide them and want them to be explicitly stated for them to judge the information I give them and my perspective. In these cases, they know I'm happily a believing member and they often know that I come from a very blended family that does not fit LDS norms and some aren't LDS. A number came to me because I don't fit the average UT mormon stereotype or they see me a little as "middle ground." I've had a few clients have concerns about my religious background at the beginning of therapy/before we've started therapy. We talk about them, I listen to their stories, and they generally end up enjoying therapy with me. I expect no one to "remain quiet" in my office unless someone is overtaking therapy and their partner cannot find space to talk in session. With all due respect, I'm really wondering how you even reached these conclusions from the 2 posts I've made. I used "problem" exactly once in between both posts. And it was a specific piece of advice towards members who may get focused on fixing their spouses faith concerns by answering this or that point of doctrinal concern...which generally doesn't work and adds to the frustration and distance in the marriage. I'm saying it would be unfair to expect either party to change their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) as the premise to their interactions. The counseling is to help them have a better relationship/marriage and to feel that they have tools and methods to talk more openly about these fundamental shifts currently affecting their marriage. Also I used the term faith crisis and faith transition because that was what was used in the OP article and most of the people on this thread (believer or not). Many people in faith crisis wouldn't immediately describe themselves as a non-believer or no longer LDS. My general rule is to mirror whatever terms they use to describe themselves and their current situation. With luv, BD
  25. No. This simplified message may feel comfortable to someone who has left the church and now subscribes to a viewpoint that's heavier into relativism or every religion/belief system is the same-ish. But for the believer it may be more off putting than helpful. For someone who's really struggled with a loved one's transition the wording could be its own form of triggering. Especially if they've felt or had their partner/friend/relative try to convince them they're wrong to hold their values or beliefs. What would be asked of them in this scenario would be inherently unequal (they're being asked to move their world view/paradigm while the non-believer is just being asked to remember the good things in mormon beliefs/practices). My points do not assume what you're describing. I'm saying help them learn how to communicate and hear the other person while also finding common truths and values to recement their relationship. When I have the believing spouse on their own, I'm not asking them to look at outside world views about their beliefs (especially if they don't want to) but helping them reframe their experience founded on their beliefs in such a way to foster (realistic) hope and a greater peace with their current experience....especially when the believing spouse is very obviously not entering their own faith crisis and note their faith as a main source for strength and solace. With luv, BD
×
×
  • Create New...