Jump to content

BlueDreams

Contributor
  • Content Count

    3,692
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts 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.

    • Like 2

  2. Already part of that trend...I never have had cable as an adult.   :D 

    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

    • Like 1

  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

    • Like 1

  4. 26 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

    Our friend's daughter was white, not black. Her dreads were free form, rather than braids. Even this speaker in the video above seems to distinguish between free form dreadlocks and locs. I have never seen braids of any length on any person appear unclean or unkempt. 

    There is a difference between cultural ignorance and simple ignorance or misunderstanding. 

    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

    • Like 1

  5. 47 minutes ago, Calm said:

    A former stake president turned it into a test of obedience when I asked him if my husband would have to shave his beautiful beard when he became an HC.  Honestly I would have respected him more if he had just said "it's a pet peeve of mine, hope you understand" or just said it's expected like missionaries wearing suits.  I lost some respect for him that day.  There are so many things we need to be obedient for coming up with arbitrary trivial tests to prove someone's spiritual worthiness is petty in my view.

    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 :P 

     

    With luv,

    BD

    • Like 1

  6. 8 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

    Two things struck me when reading the linked article:  1) I have been asked many times during my lifetime where my people come from - my maternal grandfather is Swedish, maternal grandmother is Scots-Irish, and my dad's family has been in this country since the 1600s. I enjoy the questions and enjoy talking about my heritage. This same question when asked of a this man is perceived as racist or offensive. This is one of the reasons I think racism is often perception rather than overt act. 

    2)  An individual wants to wear a specific hairstyle in order to feel closer to their ancestral roots of Ghana, Ivory Coast, and Cameroon. Hmm, is the hairstyle part of their ancestral roots. This individual just got finished informing another member where he came from - "Georgia" - so, how do dreads fit into Georgian history, culture, etc.?

    Basically, I would want to know how this specific hairstyle fits into one's roots. Dreadlocks have a long history, but the most common recent history was with the great Bob Marley (play it - Buffalo Soldier, No Woman, No Cry, Exodus, and countless other hits that make me happy when I listen to the four albums I have of his music). Among the reasons he wore dreads were both spiritual and cultural. The article in Wikipedia was worth a read

    If a white person had asked me the same question - I would say no. No, because dreads don't appear to be clean and for the political statement it makes. Why should it be different for a black person? Racism is more about perception than the overt thoughts and actions of others. 

     

    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

    • Like 1

  7. 3 hours ago, bluebell said:

    We live in a state (with a wonderful Stake president and counselors that I love) that requires HC and bishoprics to be clean shaven and it drives me crazy!  My parents' bishop has a beard, but in my stake you have to shave or you aren't qualified for that calling.  It makes no sense and I really hope they change it soon.  

    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 :P. I love his hair longer and his face with a little scruff. 

     

    With luv,

    BD

    • Like 4

  8. 3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

    Sure.  I think I understand.  

    Her accusation sounded so emotional and unfounded though.  I mean even the soft hearted Nehor “went there” and told her to get help, so I think I was thinking along the lines of “oh, this sounds a little more like a personal and delicate situation than an arguing point.” So I didn’t feel any need to defend myself against the extreme statement. 

    I recognize the need to address bigotry, certainly.  I saw this as something else. I’ve been wrong many times before. 

     

    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 

    • Like 4

  9. 45 minutes ago, changed said:

    For couples where both use porn it is not a big deal.  For most in the church who want a different type of relationship, yes, it is a big deal for those who value loyalty.  

    Assault is very much tied to porn - porn is like a gateway drug.  

    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  

    • Like 4

  10. 1 hour ago, changed said:

     

    Spouses of porn users are my main concern - it feels the same as adultery does, and they should be proactively sought after to provide help to.  

    27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.  

     

    As for younger users, date rape - and assaults are way high in college and HS - so yes, there are quite a few young victims.  ~25% of women are sexually assaulted, that is how large the problem is.  

     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

     

    • Like 3

  11. 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 :P . 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 

     

    • Like 1

  12. 17 hours ago, gregory_underscore said:

    therapy was a Freudian scam to replace the priest. my teenage years would have been astromicly better without the drugs and therapy and just admitting my sins and trails to my bishop. 

    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 

    • Like 2

  13. 16 hours ago, Stargazer said:

    This is a bit off-topic, but I was rather curious about this.  

    If I were trying to teach someone (atheist, agnostic, Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, or whatever) about the gospel, I would think that asking someone to temporary suspend their disbelief and consider what I was teaching them would be entirely appropriate.  In other words, open your mind and consider for a moment what I am about to tell you.  Someone who listens to what you have to say while refusing to consider that you might be right is only listening to words, and when it comes down to "...and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost" you've lost him or her.  Alma 32 requires that one experiment with faith, which means that one must suspend one's disbelief temporarily.  Otherwise the experiment is void.

    Or maybe there's more to it than what you've indicated?

    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 

    • Like 2

  14. 19 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

    I don’t see why a believer would need to relent their belief to come to an understanding between the two that allows for a healthy relationship. Maybe I’m not following. 

    IMO many attend therapy with an agenda of changing the other person.  In reality, that is not what therapy is. 

    I think many believers (imo) hope that non believers will “come around”.  Sometimes that makes the relationship feel like it is motivated by agenda, for the non believer.  That cannot feel good. 

    I think believers often feel afraid of offending (further?). 

    In truth, there is much miscommunication and assumption that happens between believer and nonbeliever.  Therapy can facilitate clarity. Good therapists are non biased in their approach. 

    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

    • Like 3

  15. 21 hours ago, Exiled said:

    So, you obviously assume the believing spouse is correct here, right?  What do you ask of the non-believer if their believing spouse continually makes comments, or sighs, or continually pressures the non-believer to return to something the non-believer thinks is untrue?  Is a rescue mission not allowed? Should the non-believer just accept the continued pressure to return?

    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.      

    20 hours ago, Exiled said:

    I understand what she said and maybe she should be the one answering for herself.  If she doesn't priviledge belief, I don't think she would discount what I said regarding having both relax over who is right and who is wrong. If it is fine to be triggered when the non-believer suggests that the believer might not have such a strong position, obviously belief is favored. That's fine. However, I wonder if she has problems counseling the non-believer if belief  being correct is assumed from the beginning?

    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. 

    20 hours ago, Exiled said:

    Ok. But at a certain point, words have meanings that are understood by the population at large and meanings can be presumed and thoughts therefore understood. Again, if Blue Dreams thinks I don't understand her, she is capable of letting me know and explaining where I am in error.

    If she decides to further engage, I would like to know if she tackles the problem presuming that the church is true and if this can ever be an issue with her couples. Or does the non-believer need to remain quiet while pressured to return?

    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. 

     

    Quote

     

    Terming the "problem" as a faith "crisis" assumes non-belief is a problem, not continued belief.  Also, I suspect non-believing psychologists, from my experience, would perhaps take the tact of telling both spouses to relent a little in order to find common ground. (If belief isn't that big of a deal, why not have both accomodate?) However, Ms. Blue Dreams pushed back on that a little, saying it was unfair for the believer to relent on his/her belief.

    So, what is the non-believer to do? Is the "counseling" then really about getting the non-believer to not evangelize and be patient with the attempts to get the "prodigal" to return?

     

    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

    • Like 4

  16. 2 hours ago, Exiled said:

    Couldn't this be simplified into realizing that either side doesn't have a monopoly on truth?  I'm right and you are wrong seems to create division that then can devolve into break-ups.  Perhaps the believer can take a look at how the outside world views mormonism and maybe take things down a notch, and the non-believer and realize that there are some good aspects to mormon beliefs that are good for almost anyone?  Anyway, I like the approach you take by trying to find common ground and dwelling on that ...

    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

    • Like 3
×
×
  • Create New...