Jump to content

Maidservant

Members
  • Content Count

    1,653
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Maidservant

  1. Heh ;). Yea. Also there are 12 blessings in the OT that give characteristics. Good heavens, there's a desert smack dab in the middle of that too! or what?
  2. "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. "
  3. Surrounded by the twelve tribes no less.
  4. Perhaps Peter was trying to be symbolic since it refers to the curse of hanging from a tree that is in the Old Testament (and even the Book of Mormon); as well as tones suggesting the trees in the Garden.
  5. I love what Richard Rohr (a Franciscan Father) has to say about the cross. He has spoken on it often, so one can google his name and 'cross' and get several exquisite commentaries. This is one of his most recent that I really loved: The Scapegoat I personally find the symbolism of the cross to be crucial. The symbol of Jesus of Nazareth on the cross is a symbol for the actual cross. The actual cross is our entering and progression in this mortal realm. If you will notice that the human body IS the cross (shape of the cross). Thus to enter flesh, to take upon a body, a mortal path, and all that entails--is our crucifixion. We are all the lambs of God. We are all Isaac bound to the altar. The cross is only a portion of the progression template, but, again, a crucial portion. As jewelry, I'm also in love with the cross. I have a huge pink jewel encrusted goth cross. I'm probably going to continue to look for other unique cross jewelry pieces. And, yes, for me, it would be a celebration to be wearing it.
  6. We are co-eternal with God. Spirit is matter. Matter cannot be created or uncreated. While not explicit in LDS theology, I think an implication can be drawn that animals are also in progression. Creation normally does not mean to 'not exist' then 'to exist'. It has a deeper, transformative, progression based meaning. As far as the science, I am sure that the template or at least the knowledge of technology to produce any kind of body exists already. (Bodies are technology; a technology that facilitates progression among other things.) I remember this. Or at least he said a prophecy was fulfilled but I don't remember which one, but I remembered it was 'one of those' and it startled me.
  7. You are all so kind. Thank you. I have a blessed life.
  8. My first overwhelming swell of emotion when my husband passed away was, "Now I don't have to be lonely anymore." I've been lonely my whole life, and I still am (despite that initial emotion), but having been married lonely and single lonely, married lonely is far, far, far, far, far worse. (To me.)
  9. Yes. I do. "Constant" not meaning "100 percent" nor "ready to fly away with halo and wings". Let's call it 85-90--i.e., constant. And I can say this because not of who I am, but because of the influence of the Holy Ghost itself that remains in my home--constantly. In my body--constantly. I am actually surprised at how little I have to do. That's why I said yes--again, not by me. But, yes, I know that influence is here in my home, and I am awe-fully grateful for that mercy. It's a lightening, comforting, guiding, sanctifying spirit that clings to even the curtains, and follows me about when I leave the home, and brings me back. And helps me lay down at night, and wakes me up in the morning. It's so quiet I forget it's there . . . and then I remember. Yum. Yes. If for no other reason than how wearying it is to carry the damaging thoughts. Close IS constant.
  10. Time is not running out. Mosiah 4:27 It is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength. And again, it is expedient that he should be diligent. The ages that have and are still unfolding on this beautiful planet have always been within the setting of the rolling of eternity; and hopefully what we have to look forward to is a greater awareness, a thinner veil. This greater Spirit (the fire that will burn the earth) will instruct and enlighten everyone at the place they are at. That greater clarity will lead many to sorrow for their weakness and blindness and how they have been damaged and who they have damaged (etc), but that sorrow will only leave more room for their next steps of healing. I am reminded of Gadiantons who had the greatest and most precious and most lasting of conversions; when they were preached to in the prisons by the Lamanites (who otherwise cleared them out of their government and establishments) and then were released upon their agreement and repentance; and the glorious miracle in the prison with brothers Lehi and Nephi where they all experienced the glory of God.
  11. Lovely. And . . . which is also how long we have lived before we arrived here on this rock . . . so what exactly have we been doing? (We are co-eternal with God.) Here is something else. We are now in the (a) Telestial kingdom. Marrying and families is definitely going on. But I also have forgotten all that happened before I came here. So am I NOT with a previous spouse (etc)?
  12. There are a few things that never change, or are so stable within a view or experience of eternity, that for all practical purposes they never change. One: I am ( . . . here now) (=~love) Two: self-determination, agency (=~freedom). In other words--Being (love) and the agency of that Being (freedom-ish, or rather self-determination; freedom here not being a matter of options) Everything else may change in the particulars as long as the particulars remain an expression of the marriage/paradox of the love/freedom. What the particulars are that express those absolutely change with time, place, and point of view. I also like speaking of harmlessness (Ahimsa), to not harm others and to not allow yourself to be harmed and to not harm yourself. But this is not unchangeable, because we are free to do otherwise; but harmlessness is also a way to say the preservation of Being and the agency of that Being, so in that sense it is unchangeable. God is just an English word/syllable. It represents something larger than the word. It represents the reality of Being and Creation. Our Heavenly Father and Jesus show us the way to live in that reality of Being without harm, so that joy may be had. But they didn't invent it, and they've said as much. As two (+) Beings, their ideas and teachings may very well change, although I am sure they are well past the situation of not knowing what is going on with mortal progression and so can reliably be trusted to show us the way in a way that is more or less unchanging (or not). The changes are then changes we need to make, not changes of what is and who they are. They are working with noobs. The will of God is NOT the same behavior in all points of view, but rather the whisper/guidance of what will maintain integrity (no self harm) and harmlessness in any given situation, which will change. The highest law that is possible to be lived in that situation (given the capacity of the mortal, etc) will be the guidance--not necessarily the highest law to be found in all the universe. We can't do the universe calculus if we haven't even learned our universe add and subtract.
  13. It made me sad that people's pure childlike praise is not wanted. At least the first time it happened, it felt very spontaneous. I felt like a much better church meeting. Job 38:7 The morning stars sang together and the sons of God shouted for joy.
  14. Not according to my dad. He kept a journal faithfully and it was probably the commandment he drummed into us the most. And I do keep a journal. But, yea, haven't heard it lately from an official pulpit.
  15. I think it's a balance. I don't think callings should be turned down on preference (I mean, go ahead, but I just don't think so), but accepted on the premise that there is an opportunity to grow, serve, and be served by, and become closer to the Lord and other people in the ward; in a way that may not at first be apparent because of our fears and weakness. On the other hand, 'no' should always be on the table, and yes, one can evaluate with personal revelation. I've never said 'no' to a calling initially, but I did ask for a release from one. I was waking up nauseated every day for a year under the stress and personality crap and for whatever reason, my lack of faith or whatever, it wasn't resolving, and in the end, I had to do something kind for myself and not cause myself to go through pure torture.
  16. Man, I wish they'd bring this back. So we could sit still and relax and just be with our sisters for a full week every month and ponder and discuss and read and do personal projects without having to find the socks and make the pancakes and do the housework of you men every blammin minute of every day. 🙄😜🤐😨 (Tell us how you really feel, lol . . .)
  17. Thank you for a reply, Robert. I don't have experience lying about a man's interaction with me. I don't know if I have had an experience of misunderstanding and thereafter myself causing a man to lose livelihood or some other important state. I think not, but perhaps there is a man out there who would say differently. I don't know any woman or man close to me, or that has confided in me, that has directly had these experiences. I have also not been mistreated by church or professional male leaders in any sexual manner. So I can't personally form an opinion on any of these things nor speak to them. In high school, I have had one instance of sexually inappropriate remarks made toward me, in public, by one of my male peers. I am positive that his purpose was to humiliate me and to entertain his friends and thereby feel good about himself that he managed to be entertaining and humiliating. It was not an accident. When it happened, it didn't occur to me to 'tell' anyone; nor to address it directly with him or to take hold of any institutional redress of which I would not have known there was, and I am saying there wasn't any to be known. It did occur to me to blame myself and that he was right. My crime was the way I was sitting. If only I had been sitting differently, you know? I was afraid of him and had no skills for directly addressing the issue with him. No other memory such as that before nor since is coming to mind, so I think I've been blessed to be spared worse. I do have one other non-sexual misuse of position by virtue of being male, where I was told point blank by an LDS gentleman business owner who was interviewing me (I had applied) that I should go home and take care of my husband (instead of applying for jobs and that he would not be hiring me). As if I was incapable of thinking through my life and making a decision about where I needed to be and what I needed to be doing, and what was best for my family. I know that in his mind, his purpose was to encourage me to keep the commandments and live the gospel. But he was--wrong. He was way outside of his boundary. The way I handled it was to get up and leave and apply elsewhere. I'm fine with that. I don't need him to change. But I think it's sad. I did share the experience with my bishop, who actually called the gentleman and told him that I truly needed work because of our family situation; but I don't know that he told him he was wrong, I simply don't know how that conversation went. But I am even sadder that it took a man and a bishop to have that conversation--that my word was insufficient. I didn't return even though the way was opened to me, preferring my dignity over working at that particular place. Perhaps that man would say that I violated his dignity by the way I handled it; and indeed perhaps there is something I could have done better. The point of these two stories is not that it is the man's fault and a woman suffered--it is that both the men and the woman in the situation (myself) are at the mercy of deep paradigmatic ignorance. My high school peer is just as much in need of freedom as I was--freedom from needing to entertain his friends by the means of sexual humiliation--to be seen in a different way as a man. The second man was in need of freedom of needing to feel like he was a righteous man by a certain rigid, patronizing way. I think he would have felt judged by his peers and persons he admired if he had 'let ' me work there. These are direct experiences from which I've formed my opinion, not merely a hashtag. I don't think it's necessary to agree with me, but I also don't think it's unreasonable to be asking the world to grow up about how male position and power is related to (in sexual and other terms), both by men and women, to both of their blessing. It's not either/or.
  18. I am an Anson Call descendant. My mother-in-law's older brothers and sisters (and therefore her parents) were born and lived in Mexico. My mother-in-law was a younger child, and born in New Mexico, and later raised in Mesa, Arizona. Her maiden name is Skouson. It's through the family connection I have heard of this history, but not much. I can't recall if I ever heard it in an institutional setting, but if I did, it would have been brief and singular.
  19. What is the solution in your eyes, then, Robert? Or any personal experiences where in the workplace, your way of interacting with women was unreasonably misunderstood? Not saying you would have done anything like that at all, which is why I'm asking, because I can't imagine you in a situation like that either way.
  20. I agree with @Jane_Doe that the issue is not whether or not something meets the definition of assault, and also not only the issue of consent, although those are two essential pieces of the puzzle; but the entire culture that gives rise to the dishonor of body and agency, as it relates to all of us, and as it relates to women; although there may be other important foci other than women i.e. how it relates to men, how it relates to kids, how it relates to brown bodies, etc.; but nevertheless, as women, we do have to come out of history on this (in order to bless not only ourselves but our men, daughters, and sons also): the full agency and the full honor of our body. Affirmative consent is the practical standard at this time. It means that an explicit 'yes' for an intimate experience; not merely the absence of any 'no'. ("She didn't say no!" is not okay; "Did she actually say yes, out loud?" is necessary.) I read an article today or yesterday about how some high school girls found a list that their male peers had created that numerically ranked the attractiveness of the girls. That is neither an issue of assault nor of consent. But at least two things in the article struck me--one, a girl had struggled much of her young life with an eating disorder, and was doing a lot of healing, and the last thing she needed was to have to deal with how high or low she was on the list and to think of her body as anything other than healthy. She refused to look at the list, preferring to nurture her own opinion of herself; still, it went viral and she couldn't escape it. It could be said to not worry what others think of you, but still it is a blow. Secondly, one girl expressed that she felt betrayed because the young men were her erstwhile friends, and now she can't trust to even have a conversation with them, because all she will be wondering is if they are calculating her rank while they are with her. So again--here is an instance of something that was neither assault nor consent per se, and yet, it is just another artifact of a (women's) body culture gone very wrong. I'm not saying 'boys are like this'. I think they aren't. I think it's what we are taught and what we allow i.e. the culture. The boys, I'm sure, meant no harm, and also considered the girls their friends. In the 70s, maybe, it would have been a little game. They just didn't understand, and maybe the girls didn't before now, too i.e. we didn't even know we could ask. But in the climate now, we are beyond asking, we're saying, it's enough, that's over. Now, in this time and age, we have to wake up to even what we might have called right or okay before, harbored a deep filter or paradigm that is keeping us all, men and women, in chains and barring our, again, full agency, full honor, and fully intimacy with one another. Can you elaborate here? Do you actually see this, do you have at least one personal anecdote? What does it actually look like to you i.e. what does "dress for such" mean? What behavior happens during "flirty"? What does "turn on" mean to you, especially I am assuming in the context of LDS young women and young men? I don't understand "try to turn on" but "no intent" . . . and "get sexual attention" but "no intent to be sexual" . . . .it's either one or the other, isn't it? I'm not saying against you, but maybe it would help you too to be more exact in describing what you've actually seen and experienced, instead of a vague theoretical. Because in terms of LDS young women, I'm having a hard time thinking "dress for such" could possibly be, again, not just trying to be against your experience, but an honest question. I mean, are they wearing hot red fishnet tights and cone bras? Also I am thinking that "wanting attention from a boy" is not the same thing at all as "wanting sexual attention". Anyway, just some thoughts that came to me as you did your best to express your thoughts, which I appreciate. I like the "cup of tea" consent videos on YouTube, if you haven't seen those, check them out. I also think about a brand new car--just because some parks a Lamborghini in front of you doesn't mean you drive off with it just because it's an awesome car and you want it. It doesn't belong to you, period. Even if a woman dresses in a way to enhance their beauty and attractiveness--which I think is a perfectly reasonable way to dress, what are we going to dress ugly?--and enters your field (men), if she doesn't belong to you, she doesn't belong to you. I also want to point out that I have never, ever, even once for one second in my entire life dressed for a man. But I love wearing shorts, tank tops, I like wearing summer dresses, I like having parts of my body such as back, shoulders, and belly, out free in the air and sun. I don't get much chance for it (as normally I am wearing garments), but I feel comfortable that way, with as little clothing as possible. I am not dressing this way to show, but to feel. I wear clothes because of comfort and artistry i.e. what I think looks cute to me, not to a man. Personally, male attention terrifies me. I don't want any. So I hate that freedom in my God-given body has been appropriated by a code regarding sexual signals between man and woman, which is learned and not biological (the clothing codes, I mean) and by now in our society is so mixed of signal. I live in a time when I have to cover up my body as much as possible and I hate it and I don't get it. Attraction is natural (man-man, man-woman, woman-woman). Others' bodies ought to inspire a pleasant sensation of attractiveness. This is a gift from God. A sensation of attraction ought not to send anyone into a tailspin or a frame of sin and temptation, and I hope that is what we teach our young people. But appreciating fine art (Mona Lisa) is different than taking it out of the exhibit and walking off with it if it doesn't belong to you.
  21. There is supposed to be a Gospel Essentials Sunday School class; or I don't know now since President Nelson. But before there was. And there is supposed to be a temple prep class.
×
×
  • Create New...