BlueDreams

I don't know if that counts as a sign. They weren't seeking to "prove" God, just understand spiritual experiences on a scientific level. More like, what happens to people who say they're experiencing God. That's being curious, not being hubristic. Ps. I generally nowadays use They in the plural sense for God. Since it fits my experience of God most accurately: God as sacred Family, God as Heavenly Father and Mother, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. God that will one day incorporate us as Them. My prayers nowadays feel more like Family Counsel than anything else. With luv, BD

I'm sure God doesn't mind. They're Their kids too. Plus I've supplicated for dumber things With luv, BD

I'd definitely second that on my limited experience with people in faith transitions or faith explorations. Often some of what they're tackling is some form of simplification given to them from others (leaders, parents, etc) that assumes more harmony than not...more well kept than chaotic records. When texts are acknowledged as being imperfect, it's never given with a really messy example, but with a minimally important example or more importantly no concrete examples. So the conflict, imcompletions, problems, and contradictions in scripture remain abstract or small while the sacred otherworldliness that holds a clear message for us in our day looms large. I've been told, more than once, that my views - which prefers the more messy chaos and finds sacred value in it, not in spite of it - is some version of weird or even incomprehensible. We may not say univocality, but there's definitely strains in us that does univocality. With luv, BD

You tend to clip out context and the context is extremely important. in all of the first half at least, the context I read was by no means as damnable as you're giving in interpretations. They context makes it clear how this fits his arguments and also were generally not about character assaults on you or folk who view the world similarly to you. Some are from the exact same post cut up 3-4 different ways. This isn't super convincing to me. And honestly it comes off a little like seeking offense from a heated debate. For example, the one about social capital through carrying water. It sounds pretty bad in isolation, in context it made sense within an argument (an argument I both agree with and disagree with on certain points) and was followed by him acknowledging that you were both "reasonable" describing your arguments in "good faith" and were "patient" and "reasonable" in how you presented your arguments. He also doesn't hold himself somehow objectively above identity politics in how he frames and sees arguments. This fits with what I've seen from Dan. He has very strong positions on a narrow set of issues he discusses within the context of how the bible is utilized. And he can be very brutally honest in his critiques of problematic arguments. But he's also generally mellow on his podcast, kind, and careful in sharing within his expertise and differentiating between scholarly basing and opinion sharing and backing up his claims with clear evidence. I don't sniff anything nefarious, even when I disagree with him. (And I have moments that I do). TBH, I rarely smell nefarious in most people, even when I think they're wrong or I simply disagree with them or their approach. I generally agree with Dan that people make sense within their contexts. Though I'd word it very differently. If you've had personal engagement with him, I would assume he'd disagree with you and I also assume he wouldn't be soft about it or clip words. It ain't his style. I also don't know the context. As I mentioned, I just jumped in this thread pretty blindly as I don't have much time to read much of anything this week. (solo parenting while husband's out). The others you gave context. The contexts make me doubt how you're interpreting the experiences in this one. With luv, BD

I've seen/listened to several of his videos. I don't watch consistently, but his podcast can be entertaining/educational. His smaller vids started to repeat in subjects for me a little...so I stopped watching most of those. To note, I haven't paid full attention to this thread either. I will say, his orientation has been extremely consistent. On what @smac97 summarized: On point A I'd generally agree. On point B I think it's not exactly correct. On the sociopolitical issues, he does talk about them, but more so in critiquing people using the bible as a source to bolster their sociopolitical claims as the ultimate trump card by insisting the bible speaks against this or that modern issue. Or using it to dismiss others right to negotiate with the text differently. His points usually stem on the difference between common narratives about the bible (a inherent text, internally consistent, with relatable social dynamics found in them, being biggies), a tendency for specific christian subsets to assume the bible iterates their views while ignoring when the text openly conflicts or is completely irrelevant to their current views, and the assumption that their interpretation/negotiations are not actually interpretations but TRUTH...because bible =word of God = inerrant = never changing. Thus my interpretation is the word, any other negotiation is falsehoods. And people playing biblical scholar to give an air of scholarly affirmation for their view points when they don't know much at all about it and are usually quoting some apologetics argument that's generally debunked our obsolete. I would also add, that though not as common, he also has dissected poor atheistic/secular arguments that use the air of scholarship to take down the bible as a sacred text or to throw shade on christian beliefs in general. I don't think he generally does personality attacks. Some of these take downs can be very brutal....but not really in language or character assaults. Moreso like a professor grilling someone for using wikipedia as their main source for a major research paper. Or for saying/validating some version of bigotry or sexism using the text. I could see how these can look like personality attacks...I just disagree that that's their main point. On the church, this is the description by Smac I disagree the most with. The VAST majority of his material that I've watched doesn't talk much at all about the church in any way shape or form. You would have to guess he was LDS, namely from the BYU degree hanging in the background of many of his videos. There's a few, including critiques of mainstream assertions about the biblical texts. But honestly, they're rare, more interesting than adverserial, and never come off as massive takedowns of the church at large. For that matter, I've never heard him do a major take down of any religious institution at large...just lines of thoughts within religious traditions, namely very conservative christians of the US ev, fundy, and protestant variety in particular. He doesn't talk explicitly about his beliefs, nor insist the church should bend to his views, nor assumes the only interpretation that works is a secular modern one. I get the sense that he's by no means ashamed or embarrassed by his faith of choice, identifying calmly as both a Latter-day Saint and a Christian. Honestly, many of his critiques just aren't as much a problem within church doctrine. Doctrinally, we don't think the bible is inerrant nor any of our books are. We technically don't need it to be wholly accurate. Several things we hold aren't based on biblicaly authority or revelatory/prophetic authority, we believe all truth isn't laid out in our past, but unfolding in the present and future. These beliefs among others are why I've had little trouble with much of the scholarly work I've listened or read from. I'm assuming it's similar for him. But it's an assumption because, again, he doesn't make his personal religious beliefs the prominent focus. That said I think it could be difficult to grapple with, culturally, as there are interpretive assumptions that have built up in our faith over the years that many engage with as if it's doctrinally foundational...and our own version of inerrant. We still sometimes engage with the bible in terms more dictated by mainline assumptions that what our very unorthodox views would allow us to. I think he might have in his first podcast episode, but that was a while ago and I can't remember exactly. But based on how you use it here, I would assume something similar. I would also assume it would be along the lines of supernatural claims being a subject of interpretation of data, rather than data itself. A classic example is the neuroscience study of the nuns (or monks or something religious) praying and certain aspects of the brain lighting up in the action. That's data. But those more non-religious interpreted the data to assume that the nuns were just having a brain experience when describing "Spirit." Meanwhile the nuns interpreted the data as what happens to them physically when God speaks to them spiritually. You can't prove one or the other correct by data alone. We all interpret data based on our contexts. But data doesn't innately support supernatural claims. Basing one faith on this is kinda contradictory to what faith is IMHO. With luv, BD

I haven't looked at the board for a bit so definitely missed much of this discussion. I did try to read most the first half and the last page or so, so I don't sound too redundant. I always find this theme really fascinating because it can very much differ from person to person as to what they see/experience with church and control in some way. To me, it depends on a few questions: What is "the church?" What is control? Is control a bad thing? Personally I've seen the practical use definition of church differ from person to person. Sometimes church is gospel or doctrine. Sometimes it is the institutional structures. Sometimes it's general leadership. Sometimes is ward/stake communities. Sometimes it's one's family. Often it's a mash up of this in varying ways. So I may have a similar language to someone but use that language to define church very very differently from another. The "church" that's ward/family often helps define how people interact with the other versions of "church." And that church can lay out frameworks for what people do and/or interact with it. My church is not necessarily that of MS's church or Calm's or Smac's. It's under the larger umbrella called the Church of JC of LDS. But it's not the same. I don't have your families, your generations, your life experiences in it, etc. Control is inherently subjective. I've seen people describe control in a litany of ways, and based on some of the definitions, I've been controlling, depending how one sees it. I'm a fairly blunt therapist. I've told clients that abc behavior will likely come to blow up in their face/marriage/relationships. I'll tell them that their way of doing whatever will lead to pretty crappy consequences and it'll have to change in order for them to have what they truly want. I'll lay out basic frameworks of what changes are immediately needed, adding more as they go. I told a client they were being an A**hole and had them repeat what I said in order for them to face what they were doing and stop (FTR, they trust me a ton and still see me on the reg and they struggle with NPD...so not your usual client nor what I'd normally tell a client to say). I often frame therapy carefully, due to the nature of much of my recent clientele. All of this could be seen as some version of control. Of course, control can also be defined more limitedly to be absolute force of some sort (something I adamantly don't do). Or something else all together. I note to a lot of my clients that anxiety's root is most often found in the illusion of being able to control things. In the OP, I personally had a hard time distinguishing the definitions of control with culture or conformity. I also found Smac's assertion that there's an objective definition to a social construct unconvincing. Lastly depending on the definition, I don't think control is either good or bad. It depends the reasons for it, how its implemented, and what definition is being used. Some people do feel boundaries are a form of control, because it's not allowing another to have their way with you around them. Whether they like it or not, I'll always believe basic boundaries are a good thing. I also think there's an element of control in any form of discipline (not just punishment, but any form of refining limitations or activities meant to better an individual). I think there's experiences I've had in "the church" that are forms of control I find wrong because they're a form of "unrighteous dominion" or a means to reinforce conformity. (I also think there's a culture in the church that values conformity without necessarily calling it that...looking at you white shirts/ties, beardlessness, and knee length pants/skirts). I think there's "control" that's neutral and more of a cultural quirk than anything else. Usually with our individualistic broader culture, control is almost always defined as bad. Which is why we get in odd debates about what control even is, trying to define out the types of unhealthy control to be able to say it's not really in the church or to post said control problems on the church's proverbial door. I do think Church and institutions in general have degrees of control in them. I think there's some unhealthy versions of that within church frameworks. I also think there's healthy and needed versions in said frameworks. I've seen "the church" gently clip at several of those over the years. And I've seen elements in the church struggle to implement them and/or point at more issues they see, depending. Thems me thoughts With luv, BD

I'm so sorry for you and your family. I don't want to get anything shut down, but I'm pretty sure every last comment I could make after that would be at least somewhat political. I do hope that one day we can find a path that allows for boundaries and legal pathways for good people like your SIL to come in and stay.

Technically I use it as both, depending the time of the month. I hate wearing bras, but most the time that I do I wear it over them, because I hate the sensation on my skin. With luv, BD

I'm both excited and happy to see a very need change coming down the pipeline. I'm also a little nervous with the wording in the official announcement, that makes me wonder if they'll restrict this to just super hot/humid areas. I hope not and would really want them to first roll out to areas that need it the most to assure saturation to those who've struggled the most with garments before opening up supply to the larger church body. But I also want some pairs in the nearish future. So I'm hoping it comes to everybody in time. With luv, BD

I wonder how this compares to other fields of work. I know certain jobs tend to attract differing people who tend to hold more similar views or outlooks. So it would be interesting to compare it to other fields.

We were singing it this week and my 5 year old daughter spaz declared it her favorite song. She was singing along, though definitely making up or ignoring the words. 😅 It's been fun to see the roll out.

I'm assuming not. Those trees are fully mature. The neighborhoods they're in are well established ones, which means the tree cover is established as well. At least 20-30 year growth on them depending. I refreshed my memory of my high school hometown, which borders fairview. The street that the temple site is on is literally the border of my hometown and it's less than a 5 minute drive from the subdivision my mom lives in. I'm now really annoyed that they're using the "keeping it country" stick for their issues with aesthetics. That area is by no means country unless you pretend Fairview is its own thing. It's a mile away from a HUGE shopping area, across the street from sprawling subdivisions on a main road with tons of traffic passing on it daily. These are all Allen subdivisions though. Fairview is more sparsely populated, but it isn't country, it's suburban wealthy areas, with larger properties and plots of land (I'm guessing 1-1.5 acre lots based on the closest zillow properties for sale) that's sandwiched between two bigger suburban sprawls/cities with over 100K and 200k people in them respectively. I guess it's more catchy a saying than "keeping it texas posh" though. I'm leaning for this being a NIMBY thing slightly over this being a religious bias thing. (though, I doubt there's not some of that. The area is why I had a massive prejudice towards Ev groups for years after leaving the place. It was not exactly kind to "the mormons"). Still the aesthetics arguments is super stretched. I wouldn't be surprised if the church doesn't have a case.

I know this is old, but I've been out of country for a bit and this is the first time I've seen this. There's stuff that I'm okay with in this. And there's stuff I'm not. The stuff I agree with are the areas that are overtly gendered having some boundaries to them. Such as youth overnights. Not only for the example you mentioned, But also for the the safety and comfort of the trans kid. Usually the sleep over part is the least monitored by adults, which could lead to bullying or harassment when people aren't looking. I would be equally concerned for a transboy staying over with a bunch of boys. I find the bathroom one extremely uncomfortable. It borders on humiliating when I put myself in the shoes of a person who's transitioned. I get the desire of separation and privacy, particulary when transition is only/mostly social. But I also find it super intrusive to discuss your bathroom usage with a bishop/leader. I think some things are a little too over gendered. Younger children callings are not gendered and I can't think of a reason that a transperson couldn't help in those areas. The ordinance of baptism and confirmation seems excessive to me. I've never seen anything to infer that baptism/confirmation are in anyway about gender. I think it would be more appropriate to use one's legal name, than birth name to be more on equal stance with practices for the cisgendered majority. For example if I were baptized or receive a blessing today, my married name would be used, not my birth name. When I married I seriously contemplated switching my first name with my middle, since I go primarily by my middle name. In which case that arbitrary shift would also show up when I received a blessing. I don't see the point in insisting using their birth name, even if their legal name has been changed. If there's concerns about it switching again at some point, it would be simple to make a specific form for other names and have records be changed as needed. Many trans people are particularly uncomfortable with their birth names. I don't think it's really helpful to make them confront their discomfort while committing themselves into a church where discomfort and limitations will be apparent from the get-go. I'm struggling to find much of what's being mentioned In the actual handbook, but assume I'm just not searching it well. I am glad that every entry I do find emphasizes being loving and compassionate to transpeople and in their complex concerns. I'm also glad that there's at least 1 acknowledgment about not knowing where these feelings or impressions come from for transpeople. At the same time this seems a little dissonant when there's more of a heavy emphasis on their limitations in our church community than how wards and leadership can work to better integrate them into our faith. I've always understood the tricky matter around endowments and sealings where gender is very much intertwined throughout the whole thing. And I believe in that, even if I don't have all the words to explain why I do. But I think there could have been more give and accommodation in these policies, particularly in the part where gender is not a pre-req or cultural assumption to be further wrestled with/explored as we seek for understanding of how we all fit into one greater family. Because of that, I think there is warranted criticism for some of the policies. With luv, BD

Vaccinated and boosted multiple times. I flew under the radar once right before a trip and got an extra booster (didn't realize I wasn't supposed to get an extra). The vaccines used to have an effect on me (nothing extreme), but each round has gotten easier to take. Last one was last year some time. Don't remember how many I've had all together. I've never tested positive for covid. We test each time we or our daughter is sick since major illnesses can be rough on her system. Until she could get vaccinated, much of that was thanks to hypervigilance. I dodged Covid and any chance of getting covid like a ninja. At this point, it's probably just a mix of luck and vaccinations. I've traveled via plane twice since my last vaccine and my daughter's in school and has gone the rounds with illnesses during the school year, which inevitably will get one or both of us sick too. I feel like it's inevitable I will get it...but at the same time at this point I'm curious how long I can go before I do. But who knows, maybe my fam just never had a symptomatic case. It's technically feasible that all of us just didn't show symptoms I guess. My family has the range. Most got vaccinated in my immediate circles at least the first round (minus a fiance to my bro). My Step-dad was on the fence about it since his circles were also skeptical...but then he got covid I around new years of '21. It got him hospitalized for 3 days, moved him from pre-diabetic to diabetic, and he still has a reduced sense of taste. He couldn't smell for over a year. Most my immediate circle has gotten it. Most were just normal variants of sick. But my immediate circle is largely not made of people with higher risks (young families, generally). Now that I think about it, my Aunt became a long-hauler. She's struggled a ton with her health for a couple years post covid. She's in her 50's I tihnk.

I don't want to come off as invalidating your experience. Absolutes are a bit of a trigger for me though. As I tend to look a ton at exceptions. I would note that many/most members were not raised in the 70's/80's. Most of us are a lot younger than that. And the generational pushes have slowly shifted. Conformity is not a solid given, but can look like it if the wards one has attended have a specific demographic (more homogeneous, more mountainwest pop). As mentioned, I live in UT, but I attend a Spanish ward. The cultural layout is very different even in some superficial ways. For example the dress is more variant in a Spanish ward whereas it's far more similar in our local English wards/stake. It shows in other ways to. There can be more open disagreements in Sunday school classes than in English ones for example. That's also going to effect how people feel about the "covenant path." I don't experience it in the way that you describe. My perceptions, contexts, and personality engages with the same information differently. I don't react with thoughts of fear or shame surrounding it.