Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by BlueDreams

  1. I've been meaning to post to this but have had difficulty to find the time. Even now as I type, my baby is sleeping on me, so excuse the many grammatical errors. I've read maybe around half of the posts on the thread and read the majority of the article in the OP. There are things I agreed with and things that I felt could be a little simplified in description. My personal perspective comes from having a number of family members leave the church to some degree or another (and for varying reasons) and also having this come up as a topic of concern for couples in therapy where one spouse is in faith crisis/transition or already left and the other spouse is still active and believing. A couple times it's come up with a person discussing about someone close to them that's not their spouse leaving. And a few times it's also come up as a topic as both have distanced to some extent from the church, but have taken very different approaches and perspectives about said distancing. I generally can agree with the outlook of the article in how it can effect or feel towards both parties. The acknowledgment is good on that. To me the article itself and its suggestions could be a little over-simplified in suggesting what members could/should do and their reactions to said situations. Based in part on what I've come to see as a bit of a simplified narrative of faith transition that works on online communities, but with a closer lens...tends to show more complexity and individual oriented patterns that increase the difficulties in feeling accepted. It also didn't really take a throw at what those reeling from a faith crisis of some sort could do as well. From what I've seen, there are things that both parties do/don't do that can make the relationship land well or become strained. The suggestions given aren't inherently bad or wrong...they just seem incomplete. That sense of incompleteness to me is epitomized in this question: "When people become disillusioned with church, how do we maintain and rebuild relationships of trust?" with her describing the people as individuals as the church. Without meaning to, this places the weight of rebuilding trust solely on the shoulders of the active members...on an issue or concern that often didn't start (nor will it end) with that individual church member. Relationships of trust are a two-way street and if it's only one side giving "love and inclusion" and the listening, openness, etc (and yes, I've seen that with people in faith crisis) it won't work....trust won't be rebuilt. Often the member just ends up feeling hurt in one way or another. I did like this "People are most likely to experience a crisis or transition of faith when there is a stark contrast between the black-and-white faith of their youth, and the more complex information and choices they now face as adults. Such jarring contrasts can make people feel as if they’ve been deceived, which deepens their distrust of the Church, its members, and—as Spencer Fluhman and Patrick Mason point out in this conversation—even the spiritual experiences that had formed the basis for their testimonies." That I have definitely seen and would add that the church is often not the only area that the black and white thinking occurs in these individual's lives. It also can be paired with generalization and the possibility that many people in their immediate circle likely had similar outlooks. If I could give advice to both active and faith-crisis member in a close relationship as to how to interact based on what I've seen, this is a bit of what I may say or recommend. Member: Take some time and grieve. It's okay to be frustrated, confused, or hurt by what's happening with your loved one. In fact you should feel and process these concerns. Try not to attack or blame them, but be honest with them about the hurt you feel. You do not have to answer all of their concerns all at once. You don't have to have the perfect answer. Often what works for you answer-wise, won't work for them. A specific bullet point of historical/social/spiritual concern is often NOT the problem in and of itself. Answering it right now, won't necessarily restore them to a place of faith. Encourage that they talk to you. Let them know that you won't give perfect answers, you'll likely have moments you don't understand or see where they're coming from....but that you do want to know what's going on and their concerns. Have love and inclusion...but boundaries and your own places of support are also important. Boundaries shouldn't be based on fear or trying to ignore the changes that happened in the relationship, but recognizing your limitations and personal need for balance. Often they may go from not sharing their concerns at all to word-vomiting every last concern they've ever had. They may make comments that are very critical of other members, religious practices, or thing that you still value. This is both overwhelming and exhausting over long periods of time. Recognize that limitation and help set when and how talking about these things can be done so both your needs are met. (for the black-and-white thinking spouse especially) It can be easy to feel betrayed, lost, and like your partner has lost themselves and all that was special in your relationship. Take some time to "time-out" church with your partner and remember other reasons that you enjoy their company. If that feels miniscule or very limited, it's likely time to work on building the relationship in general before grappling with big-ticket questions on religion. Find common beliefs and values that you still hold together. Maybe they've lost faith in prophets, but they still believe in Jesus. Maybe they don't believe in God, but they still value compassion, kindness, love, family, etc. Maybe they don't believe the historicity of the BoM but they still find the spiritual lessons from it as good Find those commonalities and use those to build a sense of spiritual connection. Faith-crisis individual: Open up to your partner/loved ones if you haven't already. It is not a favor to hide from them what you're experiencing and the longer it goes to more of a railroading it's going to feel like them. Note that opening up, doesn't mean they'll likely say or do exactly what you'd hope. And it may be in multiple conversations over time as opposed to one large sit-in. THat's okay. Take some time to step into their shoes. Empathize with them by recognizing that what you feel in a breach of trust with the church may be very similar to what they're experiencing and feelings with you right now, especially if this is the first time they've heard about your concerns or loss of faith . Do not assume that you can't talk to people from one or 2 poor experiences of from what you picture them saying (aside: I've seen a lot of projection, especially early on, about who will reject them and what their neighbor, friend, family, etc will say/do). It is likely not as bad as you think it will be, especially if you can do so while truly listening to them and assuming that even in their imperfect answers there's a good chance that their motivations are good. //// Hiding y Just as you likely didn't come to your conclusions overnight, give that same allowance to others as they grapple with your concerns. (especially for black-and-white thinkers) They may not have the same reaction to the same information that's hit you the hardest. You may have first kept the information from them in some for of protecting them from the hurt and disillusionment that you felt. As you've shared with them more about this, you may find that they seem strangely okay or find faith-oriented answers to these concerns. You may find yourself reasoning that their lack of harm to the issues that harmed you may be an indication of "blind faith" or not truly getting the gravity of an issue or even hiding themselves from "the truth." THese are judgment narratives of the same nature to members who assume the only reason you left the church is because of wanting to "sin." Hold back from that judging voice, take time to process what bothers you about them not seeing things as you do, and then work to hear and understand their perspective, even if it's not you own. tied with that, do not assume that you "get them" because you were "just like them" before a faith crisis. This can become inadvertently dismissive and hurtful and may increase a sense of isolation from each other. (especially if this is a spouse) Do not expect them to participate or welcome behaviors that go against their religious beliefs/covenants. It can be extremely disruptive, uncomfortable, and feel disrespectful to suddenly insist that they accept this or that behavior from you when for the majority of your guys' relationship that was a mutually agreed to no-no. Just because you now like coffee, for example, does not mean the other will be comfortable with your sudden purchase of a coffee machine and it being brewed each morning. Take time, talk about what you are wanting, and seek to understand their concerns. for both: take an observor/curiosity role to discussing concerns around faith and religious practice. Instead of immediately defending your position in reaction to what they're saying, take time to ask them questions about this or that concern. Check to see that you truly understand what they're trying to say. And take a moment to evaluate what you are feeling and telling them that AFTER you've sought to understand them. Take a moment and write a narrative in your head that does not put to the other in one way or another as the "bad guy" I could probably write more, but this is probably too long as is. In general, fostering trust, building relationships, helping a person feel loved cannot be done unless both parties are actively seeking these as goals. I've seen that most in spouses, but I can see that in bishop-member relationships, friendships, neighbors, etc. The active member can earnestly try and show love and care and it amount to hooey if the other person isn't also working to listen and try as well. With luv, BD
  2. This is a very delayed response to you. I'd written most of this and then got very busy with life. 1. I don't think it's that hard of a conclusion to reach. You didn't quote anyone directly, which makes it look more like you're only responding to the OP...especially so early in a thread. 2. If you noticed, I wrote a different post with other more general reasons that I give congratulations or some form of positive affirmations towards a calling. This one fits into the general "I know their talents would be good for their calling." 1. Okay, but it doesn't fit the vast majority of callings that people may give a congrats to. And again, the OP was general, so it would make sense to me that the posited reasons should be generalizable to most callings one may congratulate. 2 - by pessimistic, the only reasons you gave for people giving congratulations were all negative ones. Having a potential negative one wouldn't be pessimistic in and of itself. That it was the only potential reason or a mere congratulations is the main reason.....plus it only fits one specific calling: male leadership roles in the church. Nothing else. Which in the church often comes with a standing joke of feeling sorry for the person...or being relieved to be released/not getting the calling oneself. It's not seen, culturally (at least in the US wards I've been apart of) a calling one aspires to, even though it is generally a respected position. So to assume it must be the prestige seems a very pessimistic perspective to me. Just as if I assumed reverends were generally in it for the money. 3. The clarification does help understand where you're coming from. But again, the extrapolation just doesn't seem to fit what I've actually seen. I'm aware you didn't say "power trip," but the descriptor words you did use all are derivatives of pride/ego-rubs. I have seen that happen, most poignantly with this elder I worked with on my mission where becoming a minor leader went straight to his head for a bit and was an indication of his worthiness (to him....no one else)....but again, it's generally the exception. ******Although as an aside, paid ministers were also a common concern I saw mentioned by people we were teaching to (ie. Not members). They really really liked that we were largely lay-clergy, even if they didn't want to investigate further into our faith. Often airing their issues out to us about their local congregation and it's perceived monetary focus (I wasn't part of these congregations, so obviously I wasn't in a position to judge. I just found it interesting how often it came up as a concern). With luv, BD
  3. Curious: why do you assume that the only people being congratulated for calling are A) men and B) men called to be bishops or leadership positions? I would likely congratulate my husband if he was given a primary teacher calling because he loved subbing for the sunbeams class so much. I have never heard that described as a prestigious calling. The OP didn’t say anything about what callings are being congratulated and the assumptions following seem overly pessimistic. I’m sure there are leadership callings that end up feeling validated about their accomplishments or whatever else. But i’ve worked with several bishops due to the nature of my profession and not once had a bishop who I felt was going on a power trip in their head. Not that it can’t happen, but as a blanket statement/explanation for simple congratulations, this doesn’t appear to work from my perspective. with luv, BD
  4. I don’t remember congratulating a person recently on their calling. My last friend was called to primary president and my response was “ooohhhhhhh, i’m sure you can do it”.... mainly because she was staring at a pic of our good sized primary like someone told they needed to scale a cliff for the first time. The closest to a congrats for a calling is when I know the person well enough to know that the calling is likely a really good fit for their talents, I’m excited for the experiences they will have (usually temple worker calls because I absolutely loved being a temple worker), or that i knew they really enjoy that sort of calling. I’ve never thought of it as a prestige thing. With luv, BD
  5. It may be good to have an answer to the “why?” Just because it’s not the wanted response doesn’t mean it may be a genuine question based from her views and perspectives . And even if it weren’t answering it gently and honestly can help give another perspective that they haven’t fully thought of or integrated in how they view an event like this. It can place a personal touch to what has like been a very abstract experience for this person. So for example, if i answered her “why,” i would likely be mentioning supporting close loved ones that mean a great deal to me. I would want them to know that even though we may experience and see the world differently that i value them and all that they are. That i work with people who are LGBT and i know that one of the big changes that helped them move through some experiences of depression and anxiety or low self-worth was learning that those close to them truly would love them no matter what, even when their values diverged or that expression of love/concern wasn’t “perfect.” I know on our straight part, learning how to love others is a sincere part of the second great commandment...and by reaching out and earnestly hearing those around us is likely one of the only ways that we can do so. For the record I haven’t gone to a gay pride parade. But i’m not opposed to going either. I’m more of a quiet, behind the scenes, sort of ally. With luv, BD
  6. The liahona/iron rod distinction to me are a false dichotomy that's made more by our own cultural/spiritual feelings more than what's found in scripture. After all, there is a reason both of them are found in the story of Lehi and his family....and why Nephi, depending on how you look at it, could be seen as both "iron rod" or the "liahona" oriented. Pointing out the danger or issues with trains in the OP and your post seems a little odd to me. On a real-world note, there is no "perfect" means of travel where we can completely avoid pain, danger, cost, or accident. Traveling to CA to NY, you could take train, plane, or automobile....horse, bike or foot. All of them have a cost. All of them have risk. All of them may lead to making difficult decisions while staying on course. To pretend that there is an answer simply by changing the means of travel and that one day we'll find the perfect method to not need to confront risk or harm or crashes seems both unrealistic and counter to the point of God's plan in the first place. To me, what's being mentioned is trying to change the circumstance rather than confront it and learn how to move through it even if that means making difficult or painful decisions. It reminds me of the verse that talks about being a follower of this or that disciple/apostle/Christ with the inferred exclusion of the others. That isn't sustainable or functional. IF you are only an "iron Rod" follower, you're right...the inferred rigidity in that use could lead you to problems. If you are only a "liahona" follower, likewise the constant flexibility can also lead to issues. Here's an odd example that's happened in the last week of my life around the WoW. On sunday a friend came by and talked about her own disordered eating that led to severe rigid eating (likely orthorexia). After listening about her progress and wanting to encourage her healthy switched, I invited her to eat ice cream with me in the near future. No one would describe ice cream as something proscribed in the WoW. But a "liahona approach" would note that doing so was likely more in line with the "Spirit" of the law in this instant than following the "letter" or "iron Rod" approach. Also this same week I had a major health scare. Usually I'm a healthy eater, but my diet and life in general had gotten a little out of whack. And it showed fairly dramatically in my blood pressure. As a pregnant lady, I can't exactly afford high blood pressure for any length of time. So I did something drastic, rearranged my diet to one of exact and careful obedience of the WoW after carefully praying about it and having faith that if I listened the blessings it promised about health/destroying angels would follow. Forget not having ice cream, I'm not eating cheese or added sugar or non-plant based/low processed fats...I turned down a kind sister's offer of homemade bread, because I knew it likely contained white flour instead of whole grains. In essence I took the proverbial "iron rod" approach. If I had taken the exact same "liahona approach" that I did with my friend and shrugged off careful exactness, the drastic drop in my blood pressure in the following days may not have happened and the added revelation and guidance as to what to correct in my daily life to avoid further crashes may not have happened either. In short, I cannot say that one approach or the other was really the right way. Focusing on the means of transport and looking for the perfect uneventful/non-painful means to move misses the point that there is really only one destination and getting there is the imperative. To your last question about Jesus. I see Him as fully integrated into following the true direction that was needed. At times that meant questioning hyper-rigid beliefs that had become cumbersome to correct movement (like the corn you mentioned). At others it entailed following exactly prophecy and expectations set forth by God (like being baptized or being crucified). with luv, BD
  7. I've called myself TBM more than once on this board. Though to be fair, part of that was to point out that TBM's run the gambit since most people who do view it in the "iron rod mormon" sort of way would likely not be picturing me in their assumptions. I think whatever the way of describing it, there are those who kind of have a picture and definition that they have around those who are very faithful and active in the church. I've found that that picture often comes from a very specific type of active member and often their own experiences when they have been more active and believing than they currently are. Sometimes (not always or all obviously) people can assume that one way of person for the whole body of believers. Plus people really love labels and definitions to simplify constructs. Fortunately, people are not constructs. With luv, BD
  8. Prayer and positive well-wishing, proclamation for greater unity, etc are empty platitudes to me without actions that meet the words. I don’t fault the many likely good religious leaders who attended, including our own. When i was skimming through some of it, i heard one leader specifically talk about integrity and moral character. I pray that that can one day be better re-established. In this current national head of state, I do not hold hope for such a thing. I pray moreso that his shameful behavior will not permanently drive us into the immoral/unethical ground. I pray that one day this land can feel like a welcoming place for my internationally expanding family. I pray that my children will have a brighter future on a cleaner/fairer earth as we wake up to what we’ve done to it and ourselves in the pursuit of luxuries and wealthy. I pray that we can still change into something better than we currently are today. with luv, BD
  9. She’s still cooking, but we’re getting close. Should be sometime around early june
  10. Since I've worked at the temple on the same shift for a long time, I've worked most consistently with my Older ladies over 50. When I got married, they were so excited about it that one threw me an impromptu temple worker bridal shower at a local restaurant. It was so fun and so sweet! The good is definitely their company and sharing stories with them....sometimes unexpectedly validating. Such as when they saw that I was planning to do cloth diapering on my baby shower invites. Where I was used to somewhat defending the choice, a number of them would talk about their experiences with it, and how it'll be easier for me since I have a washer and dryer...or how they enjoyed watching the diapers air dry in the sun. They get excited with me and mention how they miss little babies. I've really enjoyed working beside them, hearing some of their life concerns as well, and from time to time helping them too. I'm really going to miss working beside them as I have. They've lived amazing lives and I was enriched by their sharing of them. Bad....Sometimes having my credentials questioned in my work cuz I'm young and look even younger than I am. Most don't and I've had some really great older folks in my office to work with. This also doesn't happen as much once they're scraping 60....I think they're more used to just about everybody being younger than them when entering an office at that point. But it can be a bit of an annoyance as they remind me that I'm about their daughter's age or I can see them wondering just how young I am and if that will be a barrier for me to really understanding their problems. Along side that, they're more likely to have some...uhh...uncomfortable opinions. About gender roles, youths, race, politics, the nation, etc. There can definitely be some generational divides in how we approach problems and discuss concerns. This isn't always bad, I can tell their way of thinking has had some benefit....but it can also come with assuming that their way is inherently better than the younger generation's method of thinking/doing things. That can be a definite problem. With luv, BD
  11. I was just watching a youtube video about the DNA tests and what they can and can't tell us about our lineage: DNA is interesting stuffs....and our understanding of how it all works can be limited and/or oversimplified to say the least. Taking the DNA tests would be fun to do one day. I figure my DNA would be pretty straight forward with my husband's more likely to throw in some genetic surprises. But neither of our stories, culture, and heritage would or really could be encapsulated in a little vial. That is base off of our own histories and feelings towards it. With luv, BD
  12. We can't measure our success as parents based on the activity of our children. My aunt and Uncle are wonderful parents who raised their children in the gospel....and only 1 of their 4 adult children are currently active. Meanwhile my parents - who have some serious faults and didn't do "all the activities" and not only "missed the spirit" but could also drag the spirit out of the home - have 5 adult children, 3 of which are still active. By these numbers, we should assume that a caustic spiritual home environment is the best at getting kids on the right track. Personally, I'd rather follow the example of my aunt and uncle. Talking of Come follow me, my husband and I were reading the part about Christ calling Peter's revelatory declaration of who Jesus was "the Rock." I was struck less by this and more by the fact that immediately after that, Christ tells them about his imminent death and the apostles start misinterpreting and questioning what he actually meant. It struck me that even with Christ physically before them they got things wrong...so how can we, who must generally rely on the Spirit to guide us in our revelation and direction, expect to not get things wrong or make error in interpreting what we need to do? God does not expect perfection in our parenting and our course. Our course with Him is the perfecting element. With luv, BD
  13. NOPE! I never broke what I'd consider were really really big ones....such as drug use or s*x or something. But if it entailed controlling people's decisions and actions or seemed too rigid to me, I was more likely to ignore it entirely. Especially once I was in off-campus housing I had a roommate that I think would have passively took the problems as well if I weren't her roommate. Our other roommate physically assaulted the passive one when she tried to insist she turn down her blaring music. When I came home and saw the goose-egg over her eyebrow, I worked with another roommate to figure out what needed to be done to get her evicted, including calling the cops for her to file a report, taking pictures, and talking to the landlord. No way in hades was I living with someone like that. I dont know how much the HC could have helped since the offending roommate wasn't a BYU student and this wasn't BYU dorms but byu-approved apartments. That was by far my worst roommate experience. But the second to last set were amazingly frustrating as well....and the HC wouldn't have done much for me on 2 counts. 1) they were UVU students and I wasn't a student either at the time 2.) their breaks were minor at best and most of their issues weren't even tied to the honor code to begin with. I ended up swapping places with one of their friends in the basement of the house-apartment to stop dealing with them. Roommate roulette was never my favorite thing. With luv, BD
  14. Yeah, definitely not what I was told either at BYU-P as well when it came to "Encouraging." I can appreciate the intentions in the first question, but I don't know if that fully came across through their methods and focus at the time I was there. With luv, BD
  15. The other post you had, didn't have the petition, but an article from common consent. So I assumed it was tied to that and couldn't see much of what you're talking about now with the petition. I don't know if you meant to post the petition the first time and mistakenly hyperlinked the other....or if the article mentioned the petition and I missed it while scan reading. But that's what I was looking at. I somewhat agree that to have it solely be self-reported could lead to its own issues. I don't know if that was really the primary thing that made BYU attractive to me as a member. It was the price tag honestly that made BYU attractive. And the price tag/the crippling debt I could have had if I wasn't attending BYU is what also makes me hesitate to say that the school shouldn't have any say or means to enforce the honor code. The voices that I've read in general that talk about HC reform I've generally found reasonable or with legitimate concerns. And there likely could be a healthy middle ground reached. With luv, BD
  16. A couple of problems with the parallels. For one, these were not police that I mentioned....they weren't even BYU police. And the questions asked were largely not to check for potential safety violations, but really to remind us of apartment curfews and to check in on sexual hanky-panky. It was fairly obvious from the questions....and one kid's surprise when he realized a car that he thought had a couple in it about to get warm and cozy was actually a well hidden trio (ie. me) crouched by my friends knees. I get that there are areas and times where it would be good for safety concerns....but that's not what was happening from what I experienced. And they didn't have any legal authority to do much of anything if there was anyways. Jane, the biggest problem I have with the parallel given is the age. These aren't teens. The area I was in was specifically generally non-freshmen and married folks. I'm sure they felt they had their reasons....but that balance between protection and intrusion/over-stepping seemed to have been crossed IMO. THanks for the clarification. I would assume that there would be a number of varying views or desires of reform. Taking out some of the teeth with the HCU wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing to me personally. Taking in reports of behavior should be done with a little more caution at the very least by the HCO....and at least a recognition of severity in concerns and answering reports based off of danger to self or others moreso than minor concerns. There's a big difference between your roommate keeps bringing illegal drugs home v. your roommate smelled of coffee and had a starbucks cup. On the bold, same. After a certain age people generally cared far less about these minor things that seemed asinine. My general rule was I didn't care unless I genuinely felt unsafe...especially once I was living in BYU approved housing but not necessarily with BYU students all the time. With luv, BD
  17. Oh, a ways in their instagram page, it describes what they're wanting to have reformed....note, reform....not removal of it. I think their basic message and desires seem like potential positive reforms/ideas for changing the HC. With luv, BD
  18. I was a little confused at first....until I realized that some of these stories were continue one several pages once you click on them (I'm not an instagram person to say the least). So far from what I'm reading a lot o the concerns seem to focus on a few themes: 1. fear based reinforcement and the clause that focuses on others reporting you to the honor code as well. 2. very strict and sometimes arbitrary reinforcement of the honor code that can have ramifications that don't match the level of the problem or degree of breaking the HC. 3. Likely overreach and invasion of privacy as well as heavy handed actions tied with being gay. 4. yes, vague stories about the honor code sucking...without much more details as to why. Those did just seem like gripe fests Personally, I went to BYU for 7 years and never had a solid run-in with the HCO to any degree. Part of this was that after a certain age or time there, I (and most the people I lived with) stop caring about some of the more rigid rules and went with a "live and let live....just respect our boundaries and need for sleep" sort of attitude. BUT I did have interactions and monitoring of behaviors that I found more than a little annoying. That included little security patrol at byu apartment style dorms of cars, where they'd knock on your car doors to talk to you and check what you were doing. And frustration with the swimming facilities for what felt like very arbitrary expectations about my swim suit that finally made me stop swimming as a form of exercise because it was frustrating to be paranoid about whether my perfectly appropriate tankini was going to be deemed inappropriate by some random lifeguard. Oh, an mixing religious terms of righteousness with the HC. I don't mind having the HC in most regards, but I do think much of the first 3 points are important concerns that should be addressed. Especially ones about having others report you. It always felt like a rule that could easily promote gossip, spying, and retaliations among students. With luv, BD
  19. I'm confused in general about what exactly is meant by "moral" in the first place. Does this mean, what is ideal....what's more likely to lead to an eternal progression. Or what's more likely to be pragmatically healthy and sustainable in the here and now. I don't usually step into polygamy threads. Historically, polygamy just doesn't interest me that much and the anecdotal stories I've read from that era are definitely a mixed bag....and in the present it just doesn't really apply to my in my relationship. The idea of polygamy for me or my spouse is repugnant. If it works for somebody out there, good for them. But the idea feels like a disruption/intrusive to something sacred and continually developing between us. I remember watching a show on netflix about polygamy in what I assume is a fairly healthy polygamous community. There was a polygamous household shown that had a very good relationship (at least as depicted)....and even in one of those best case scenarios, I still would not recommend it or want it in any meaningful way in my life. Pragmatically I don't view polygamy as very useful and more likely to lead to problems because of the nature of multiple parties involved....though this doesn't mean that in very specific circumstances or societal pressures there could be something valuable to it on a pragmatic level. But again, I don't know if any of these equate a moral stance. I agree though about pointing solely to the positive or negative experiences in polygamy to indicate its moral validity. With luv, BD
  20. I know a little, since my dad is Nigerian. In some regards people are people no matter where they come from. But there are distinctions. In the christian/non-muslim populations polygamy was practiced not too long ago, usually among leaders of the communities.....or people who could afford to support multiple families/had community capital/respect. This has stopped, but there are practices that are still extremely patriarchal (not as in patriarchal order) and leave women in major binds, legally.....though part of this could be more indicative of some attitudes that came with colonial rule rather that organic cultural heritage. I don't know much about Muslim Nigerian experiences though, since my bio-dad and step-mom were both from christian backgrounds. I would assume though, that of course there are cultural practices and assertions that influence the outcomes or likely success of polygamy. My Nigerian parents have a good relationship....I've met many people who have a range of marriages (all generally monogamous)....the traits that make them such, to me, are fairly universal (trust, obviously, is a biggie). But my personal belief has remained that the more people you put into a relationship, the more likely there is to be mess and dysfunction. The odds that all the adults are equally working together in harmony diminishes and the opportunity to focus and repair damaged relationships between spouse or sister-wives is also diminished because it has to be weighed with also maintaining the healthier relationships as well. With luv, BD
  21. I would say neither because such ideas and contexts that surround the idea of "liberal" or "conservative" were not around in said time.
  22. THe only way I could post this was in 2 posts for some reason and without the quote of the OP. Sorry if this seems out of place. To me, the case for male disenfranchisement only works when the data is cherry-picked. When there's a more general survey, the results are less straight-forward. The examples you give don't make a lot of sense of proving disenfranchisement to me. Women are 51% of white collar professionals and are overrepresented to the end of white-collar work that's lower pay in comparison. Captain marvel is captain marvel. I love marvel movies and am not sure how she stands out from the superhero crowd in your mind. Sure, she's uber powerful....but the marvel cinematic universe is heavily male. I don't see her on a pedestal. She's another superhero...with superhero powers....like a lot of other superheroes. As for #metoo repercussions, from what I see, the overreactive tip-toeing is not just a metoo movement phenomenon....people unversed in gender or race issues often can suddenly get very nervous about their behaviors and how they come off. It doesn't say much about the movement, to me, but about the people who do not understand the experience of sexual harassment, assault, etc. And the work still ahead in changing cultural and structural problems that have been overlooked. With luv, BD
  23. Testing something.... I don't see a good case for the generalized displacement of men...at least in this definition of the word via google: the state of being deprived of a right or privilege, especially the right to vote. In my personal view, being deprived a right or privilege.....or at least a great inequality would need to be tied specifically to being of the male gender in order to hold weight. I have 8 brothers and my husband. Though some of them have experienced discrimination or disenfranchisement it was not specifically related to their experience as a man. So, for example, I'm the most educated out of all of them in terms of types of degrees received. Which would fit a lot of the education stats. BUT the reason for why my brothers do not have equivalent degrees entail delayed schooling due to childhood issues that bled into adulthood (not gender specific), personal decisions for their careers that often entail less schooling (not a barring from choice), and disenfranchisement tied with being an international student (my husband had to repeat his undergrad degree when he was expecting to come for a master's program because they wouldn't recognize his previous degree). When forms of discrimination do entail to some degree their gender, it's not JUST gender that's pulling the problem. My black brothers and father, for example, have faced more fears and scrutiny from cops/others. More so than my half white siblings, some of which look very white. Being male does not entirely encapsulate the disenfranchisement. Rather, being visible men of color does.
  24. Yeah, no....I wouldn't call this a "win" per se from a religious perspective. The article also noted that the stats also point to a reduction in actual coupling as well. That means a reduction in long-lasting marital relationships....or any committal relationship really. And what several of these trends that the article talks about is a focus on sex that is highly self-oriented and individual-satisfaction oriented. If the LoC is solely about "don't have sex till marriage," then this could be seen as maybe a partial "win"....sorta. But I don't think that's even the main point of the LoC (just the culturized version of it). The main point of it is creating and then sustaining a relational path that is marked by deep commitment, love, knowledge of the other, sharing of self, and building a partnership that is structured around God. Through which, at times, children are to be brought into the world through said act. S*xual/relational expression prior should help develop both a sense of self and respect/love of oneself as well as practice and seeking sharing of self with potential partners that matches the degree of one's commitment to them. This is my personal belief....but it's based on what relationships I see that have the strongest capacity to have a relationship that fosters love through their s*xuality as well as maintaining a God-oriented relationship noted in many LDS aspirations and beliefs around marriage. So these trends by no means meet the degree of relational and s*xual aspirations I feel are tied to the LoC or leading to a sealing relationship, even if there are some temporal benefits. With luv, BD
  25. You're fine. It's helpful to know that sanitized/sterile and healthful aren't exactly the same thing. You can read a little about it here and here: You can usually see and taste the difference between the varying chicken eggs fairly clearly. My husband buys "cheapo" eggs as we call them and they're a pale yellow yoke and an extremely thin shell. I tend to buy either organic free range, organic pasture raised, or local farmer's market eggs. The color differs from a strong yellow to a dark orange. And there's research/evidence for greater nutritional value for chickens with diets and environments closer to a natural setting. I hope to one day to have some chickens of my own! I'm a little envious you get that With luv, BD
  • Create New...