BlueDreams

@Analytics I’m going to see if I can sneak some time to mention my overarching thoughts. I should note, I am not a scientist. So, I definitely can’t talk about the underpinnings of what a physicist says as that’s by no means my background. I think part of my hesitation in entering is that in all the examples you give I have a knowledge-base deficit without much desire to buff up on certain subjects. So since people have talked a good amount about the physics part, I’m going to avoid that since it’s the knowledge base I feel least qualified to talk about. I do have an interest in biology, and neuroscience. So Imma focus on these aspects. Besides, my biggest concerns are the underpinning assumptions. Starting with your Intro. First with the use of “proof”…this is a seriously lofty claim that science in general hedges carefully around. Though I didn’t study a science, I studied a “Soft science” and the wording used when doing research or papers have left me always leave space for an exception. It’s such a big phenomenon that climate scientists started to discuss how they talk to a lay people about climate change to reduce that constant underpinning for cautious language for something that isn’t in the scientific uncertainty category any longer and is currently happening all around us. “Spirits,” Souls, or something less esoteric sounding like “consciousness” is not one of those absolutes we’ve nailed down via scientific inquiry. For example you give a broad assertions about NDE’s…that’s not actually true. This is something I’m interested in…and have read several books that focused on more the research or medical orientations around NDE’s. This is not a closed field, no one is fully certain what’s happening (though there’s certainly theories/hypotheses). This study also has some stigma in scientific circles which reduces funding and understanding for this area (though it’s an opening field for exploration) Two books that I’ve read in the past are called “After” by Bruce Greyson and “Proof of Heaven” by Eben Alexander. Greyson’s book gives a synthesis of what occurs and is common themes in NDE’s, including the initial account that shook him when he met a patient who had an NDE and described exactly what he did and wore - down to a stain on his tie – in vivid detail while unconscious. That’s not an “illusion” that can easily be explained away. The other was from a neurosurgeon who had an NDE when he had a serious case of meningitis. The last part of the brain dissected the common science based explanations for what he experienced and why it doesn’t work for his circumstance. I also listened to a more brief explaination of what happened during NDE’s from a more materialist orientation….and it was surprisingly underwhelming and holey. Second there are many “best of books” The books you’re quoting sound like they absolutely fit in that category. But they come from a very specific mindset with underlying assumptions. That’s a problem. I’m currently doing a deeper dive of spiritual/religious beliefs. If I chose the “best of books” from solely a latter-day saint perspective, which I’ve done and valued…but I would get a very narrow pool to dive in. If I did that from solely a judeo-christian tradition, I’d still be limited and would swim within the parameters and assumption based on the bible and common interpretations/traditions based on it (Which I’ve also done and value). I’m currently taking a broader approach with a wider circle of “best books” Seeking out the best information from practice from world religions and exploring the spiritual values and truths emphasized differently. This again gives me something different. There are “best books” that conflict with the assumptions found in the books you’ve given. That needs to be taken into consideration too if one’s to have a broader understanding. There’s evidence that points to the idea that we might be missing something, scientifically, when thinking of what makes us, us. But whether it’s engaged with and how is often based on the presuppositions moving into this. My brother did study physic in college. He’s currently agnostic-ish (pretty sure). He tends to lean more toward a higher power but still doubting around exams and stressful situations . But either way, it’s been interesting to see how he engages with experiences I’ve had. Some that are weirdly specific. It either kinda just slides away into non-important for his life and life-view or is casually joked about. It’s not really deeply engaged beyond respectfully listening at times. That orientation doesn’t warrant to much beyond what he already deems important. Which means when a question, query, or study would be postulated by someone like him, the bias would be towards questions that ignore these experiences or frame them within their own assumptive terms and methods for study. That’s a problem for “proof.” Kinda a similar problem when you get companies funding research into their products. If you prime the pump, you’ll get closer to what you want or expect to here and will more readily dismiss what you don’t. On to part 2 How one might answer this would vary from person to person and religious tradition to religious tradition. Even in the assumption of the quote you give around judeo-christian belief about souled animals….is not correct. When I google “do animals have souls” I find about 3-5 different answers from JUST a judeo-christian perspective. This ranges from “we dunno, the bible doesn’t say much about this” to “yes, but” responses to “definitely not, but they have consciousness.” This is a common problem when I see atheist/agnostic/secular oriented scientist books discussing religious beliefs: what they depict is usually oversimplified and thus becomes a bit of a strawman. Again, a problem…because its coming from an extremely limited pool to draw from. I as a latter-day saint am happily comfortable saying “I dunno” to your questions on this. I feel religiously validated in that “I dunno” based on how I view and engage with my religious practice and beliefs. I know other faiths could probably happily extract an answer based on their beliefs that gave a more fleshed out explanation. Those that have reincarnation as a belief would probably shrug and go, the spirit will just reside in a different from. It’s no more homo erectus than you are the clothes you’re currently wearing. Which means the the assumptive “proof” falls pretty flat. I also find it weird for a biologist to say that biology proves no one has a soul. I’ve never seen a study trying to suss out the soulness of an animal. Heck, I’ve seen research that hesitates to name behaviors similar in us found in other animals as “happy” or “sad” or “grief” etc…because it can anthropomorphize a different species. The line of thought goes, it may look similar but we don’t have a means to prove that these animal experiences happiness or sadness or grief or anger. It’s impossible to fully study. If something so simple is impossible to fully assess with certainty, then I have no clue how biology could tackle that soul as a whole and which belief system is closest to “getting it right” or if none of them do. When you brought up part 3 I remembered an old book I read from my college days that I really liked. It was called “Aping Mankind” by Raymond Tallis. He has background in neuroscience, particularly in terms of practical application as a former medical doctor and later professor. His book ripped through the common assumptions, ideological underpinnings, and research flaws found in neuroscience and evolutionary theories to explain human consciousness, behavior, and culture. There’s massive limitations that effect what questions can currently be answered. I quite literally dusted off my old copy and started looking for some tidbits tied to what you mentioned. I found 3 main themes in one section tied to neuroscientific studies using fMRI machines in particular. This included oversimplified definitions/stimuli to make assumption about large and complex human constructs, indirect measures of brain activity being the core manner to do said research, and that the wide variations in results of even simple things like motor function was often lost when averaging results. He gave many different examples and in-depth examples of this. For example he described a paper that noted that physical and social pains seem to “light up” the same area of the brain that then concluded that this shows that in social creatures “the need for solidarity is served by making social exclusion painful and this requirement is met by employing circuitry that has already developed to register physical pain” he notes that a more plausible interpretation is that “the failure to demonstrate fundamental differences between stubbing your tow” and “blackballed by a club…is a measure of the limitation of fMRI scanning and, indeed, other modes of brain scanning.” He also would later go into conceptual limitations and absurdities. I would note for myself, a common conceptual concern I had in all your posts is what are the definitions and parameters for the terms you're using. What is free will? Are we talking the freedom to choose completely independently or one of mor ground choice, set in a context of social, biological, and environmental contexts, or something else? What is consciousness? Is it just the capacity to engage with certain stimuli or prompts, is it the sense of self? What is consciousness in comparison to the soul/spirit? What is the soul/spirit? Is there a universal definition of that (no, no there is definitely not) and if not who’s definition do we use? How one might answer this means that there may be 1000’s of different ways one might engage with research structuring, questions, and other preparations to decides how and what to study in neuroscience…and since scientific study tends to be reductive (as in reducing wholes to parts and variables to control/manipulate), these concepts may lose functional meaning as you try to find ways to easily quantify them. That’s a big problem in my book. As an example as to how big, based on my own experiences, biases, and professional focus…I don’t even know if I really agree with your first sentence in part 3! Particularly this part in bold. My problem with it is that I don’t know if I believe it consistently “drives the body” I mentioned in a post to teancum that I work with pretty fractured people where my job feels like I’m trying to put humpty back together again. Quite often their bodies are driven by parts that aren’t what I’d consider that fundamental aspect of a person, distinctive from your body. If anything they were run by very earth bound survival mechanisms and lessons that are triggered by external stimuli. I have to work to help peel those back eough to find that core self in a large ball of reactionary responses and then help that core self “drive” them more than their instincts. So for me I know very well that other things can drive the body and do in many many people. I don’t see the spirit necessarily fully in charge of the body. Even in my spiritual beliefs, I see this time as more a time to learn “self-mastery” Or in other words to learn how to have that core Self practice mastery over the elements that make this physical temporal self. It has that opportunity by being embodies/endowed this new estate of existence. To intertwine the eternal in an instinct driven and temporal bound sphere. I have no clue how I’d design a study to explore my belief within scientific inquiry. Because that’s not what scientific inquiry is there for. It’s not focused on esoteric explorations, but rather materialist oriented ventures. So this is why your proofs don’t really do much to prove it for me. It’s not that the information you’ve given isn’t interesting. It is. I mulled if over for a couple days. But interesting is not sufficient to warrant describing this as proof for me. With luv, BD

I hesitate To jump into the thread. Both for time (I'm leaving on vacation in a couple days and am busy due to it) but I've found what I'm reading interesting. So I can't guarantee that I'll be able to answer much as I'd like. But I think the split brain thing is a little misunderstood, particularly in differentiating between mind, consciousness, and sense of self. People with split brains, may engage and think more distinctively and more overtly than most do, but they still have a singular sense of self. This personally makes sense to me. We generally navigate multiple impulses within ourselves whether we're aware of it or not. Each time my daughter fights me, for example, there's a part of me that want to smack her in anger and a (luckily more developed and dominate part) that insists on being patient or finding non-violent means to get through the situation. On the religious front, there's a part of me that is certain of my experience of God and that there is a God/afterlife. There's another skeptic part of me that is never certain and is a chronic source of doubt and analysis for other plausible conclusions or explanations. There's core aspect of of me that acts as a middleman/pacifier between the two. Everyone has parts within themselves. Most are integrated to a degree that we don't really notice it. I have a client who has DID (dissociative identity disorder). Their parts are far more distinct and come from severe childhood traumas that fractured and froze memories into the personalities of them at the times of trauma. Access to these memories often included distinct personality shifts that effected everything from posture, voice, engagement with me, and even their handwriting and diction. They wouldn't remember or engage with the memories/knowledge these parts held. It was astounding to watch. Note that I use past tense. The more that this person integrated the information and parts of their experiences into the whole self the less and less distinct these parts have become. The problem I see in this example, is one of the main problems I have with assumptions founding much of scientific methodologies: they're reductionistic. This isn't always a bad thing. It's useful in understanding what mechanism in a system is doing what. But it can be a problem when making assertions about the total function and naming the system. So for this, scientific inquiry and data can note how the brain utilizes different neural pathways to make a congruent picture. it can point to what damaging those neural pathways splits. This can include bahaviors, motor processing, translation of data, opinions, etc. But What it can't do/what takes a leap to interpretation is assuming that these equal "the mind" and that the mind equals "consciousness" and that consciousness is the same as "the soul." That's a big leap...and one that's not warranted IMHO. So for example if I had a split brain and one part of me expressed my God-engaged part and another my "skeptic" part, that doesn't mean I've gained to consciousnesses. It means aspect of my whole do not engage the same way as they used to due to brain damage. My self, the part of me that is constant no matter how I've shifted isn't necessarily touched. When I'm engaging with said client with DID, there is a self that I will reach for who is different and constant beyond their parts. I've done the same with personality disorder, where parts are also taking over...I find a core self that engages with said parts (but isn't a part) in a wise and different way. When said clients have found "self" it's often described as a spiritual experience. It's this self that is hard to even define using scientific language...let alone study. And it's this self that is what I associate with spirit. When I can get this aspect of a human to be in the driver's seat of their mind and life, they start to deeply heal and reintegrate the parts that are out of whack. (PS. THere's a newer therapy model that's based on this called internal family systems). Gotta run! If I have more time I hope to say more on other aspects of the OP. With luv, BD

Seconding what MS said. My first response when I read it was...wait, isn't that what the temple recommend already said? I don't feel really pressed to change my habits as is. I wear them most the time with a number of exceptions for activities that it doesn't make sense to wear them. And in those I'm usually wearing tanks and shorts. Heck, with garments I'm wearing shorts in the warmer seasons.

I can't remember if i mentioned this here before, but on my instructions I got two different takes in the same instructions. I had an older lady and a younger lady giving them to me. The older was obviously more strict about what she did. The younger less so. So they would gently interject their differences at points. Which gave me an overall impression that there were many ways to be respectful with the garments and still be fine. I preferred the on display notion that there's many ways to live a principle of keeping the garment as a sacred emblem of covenants. (Which is how I've always seen them. I don't think I took them as separate from my covenants but markers of them and my own personal temple that I carried with me wherever I went). That said, this was prior to shifting about not telling people what to do with their bras. So I got used to wearing it on top and prefer it that way now for several pragmatic reasons. It would keep my g's from peaking out, would sometimes act like a tank top with less fabric, particularly with maternity bras, and I don't have to clean/buy as many bras because they would last longer from less wear and tear. Of course post covid, I simply wear bras less. I don't see the point in them most days and don't enjoy being uncomfortable. With luv, BD

Hi Zealously, I'm going to start with what I agree with first. That's what's in the Bold. I think we do not fully have a grasp on what the divine feminine is. I think there's hints of it everywhere. I think much of it is not structural per se. Italicized are the parts that I'm ehh on. As in I don't fully agree nor disagree with you. The first one I italicized, I think there's aspect that are largely creative and nuanced in manifesting the powers of God, period. That includes Priesthood and anyone who utilizes it. The second one is that I believe that about all humans everywhere. People in general have more capacity that mortality, circumstance, and our current values give full access to. I think most people miss the beauty in each individual quite a bit. The underlined I'm either uncomfortable with or makes me wince. Those fall under 3 reasons: 1.) I don't like only-isms. As in I don't like or believe the idea that only those endowed and only through the temple can we come to know the divine feminine. For one, that's not true from my experience. For another it ends up limiting potential wisdom/knowledge sources. And lastly, that's not the point of the Temple. 2.) This is a classic description of putting women on a pedestal. It's by no means comforting or enlightening for women. It can often feel patronizing and IMHO also leads to a false form of humility among the men who share it. It also ironically can leave men more dismissive of women's voices. Because those who disagree with it (which I promise you, will be basically about every woman on this board no matter their level of current affiliation with the church) are going to be dismissed as "not getting it." Which is a bit ironic. Because women, who are supposedly filled with untapped wisdom and supposedly have such saving power as to impede the doom of humanity...are dismissed when they point out a problem in this line of thought. So without meaning to, it becomes a man who needs to teach us women about our real worth and place. 3.) the set up leaves women realistically at a reduced space of voice and pragmatic power. It maintains a problem rather than fixes it, by trying to make women feel special. It also leaves women having as the main reason for their own sense of injustice, inequity, or dissatisfaction with the status quo. Again, I don't think you mean any harm. But parts of your assumptions have been harmful for many of us. I do not like pedestals. I do not enjoy an overly idealist and beatific view of women. My power and my beauty comes in my capacity to turn sh*t and trash into compost and compost into life. In dreadging into the ugly corners of a person's soul to participate deeply in the work of redemption. It comes in getting dirty. It comes in active participation and equal partnership with men. Etc. We are not there yet in having women's experiences, voice, and capacities fully realized in the church. That is a cultural heritage that's stuck with us from the many cultures of the past that have reduced the significance and importance of women's voices and power in institutional, familial, and communal spheres. We've grown. We have some solid doctrine that could lead to even further growth that's still not well fleshed out. But we've got quite a ways away. We being all of us. With luv, BD

I have a client who's partner is into the religious fanaticism. Like deeply. Some of the stuff they've told me has made my jaw drop, laugh out loud, and deeply worry about my client's safety. I don't think their local ward leaders have any clue how out to lunch this individual is. I don't think the partner I work with fully knows all the crazy this person believes, since they've only received more info about their beliefs a piece at a time. People like this tend to know when their beliefs wouldn't be readily received by others and keep it hidden for the most part. They'll justify it as being more information than the general church is ready for, or higher knowledge, or that they're in some way more special than the general church body. A lot of the latter really. I actually think that's less productive than general warnings. For one, it's impossible to name every small nut jub group and person. For another, it still gives leverage for others to differentiate them from these others. General warnings and guidance have the added benefit of throwing a wide net over several potential concerns and leave people more cautionary when it inevitably morphs shape to the new hip "I'm extra spiritual because I do X" trend that follows. With luv, BD

I'm sorry for the pain that likely caused you while you're figuring out your new space In life. I honestly don't know why that happened. I assume a big part of it is natural. I've moved wards countless times in my life. Almost none of the relationships stay. Even when the move is small. That goes for when I've moved schools, jobs, and other sources for relational engagement as well. This includes really good friends at the time. I've made so many major shifts in my life that I kinda just expect it. Part of it is just natural... Just a part of what happens as we transition in life particularly when the main vehicle of our engagement with said people is removed. I would assume that's the majority of the ward. Part of it could be more. It could be some didn't know how to engage. It could be a couple were like carbon dioxide and have a 'good riddance' mentality. I doubt that's most. I'd be surprised if that was more than just a few. Not because I don't think that element can be there. But because the general rule with major shifts in where we socialize means that who you'll socialize with will majorly shift. With luv, BD

I think so. I think there've been many who had a faith crisis or transition that's built a more robust/dynamic faith for themselves due to the experience. And I think there's been those who've had to grow in their faith and experiences by engaging with those who've had one and either stayed or left depending. With luv, BD

Thanks, this makes a little more sense to me as to what you mean. I don't know if I would describe it that way, per se. But I do think there's an aspect of the experiences of others that have made me learn and expand my own faith practice. Though I also wouldn't have described myself as slumbering prior either. Engaging with people in different ways and dynamics just tends to shift us in one way or another. With luv, BD

THanks. Now I completely agree With luv, BD

Teancum, why does his post represent most members while mine and others who've said something similar here do not?....even though there are more of us than him even in this thread saying otherwise. With luv, BD

Sorry for the delay. I'm in the middle of garden busy season moving a ton of dirt wood chips and keeping an excessive amount of plants alive (last time I counted I had around 300 starts...I have a problem) is currently my main priority among all the other balls I'm trying to keep juggling. I absolutely wouldn't say that the women's blessings "exceed" those for the men. I think that's tied more to how one prioritizes looking at the differences in both ceremonies. There are and were other differences that could easily be interpreted in the reverse. The overarching temple ceremony, IMHO, isn't supposed to indicate one gender is getting something better or worse. Technically It would probably be more than two workers as there's usually the man who officiates from the alter, 1-2 women and 1-2 additional men also in there. I don't put much umph on where they're seated. For one, if there are too many of one gender to seat on one side, they'll have spill over on the other side. Usually a couple or two will take advantage of this and sit together. No one stops them. I think there is lovely symbolism in the dualism though. I wouldn't go so far as to say that I can't imagine a more beautiful way. For one Prior to the many shifts in the last few years, and when I was a temple worker, I absolutely could imagine a better way. I spent my time deeply studying the temple as much as I could I could see both where the temple was pointing to and also see how it could feasibly do better in pointing to it. Many of the recent changes were a bit validating to what I was seeing in my studies. So even within the temple, It can be (and has become) more beautiful. I also think there's other religious practices that have far more fleshed out and nuance rituals/doctrines and beautifully described the duality of life and of humanity. Right now I'm studying Odinali, which is the igbo religion prior to christian colonization. There are aspects of it that I've found absolutely breathtaking and envious (in a holy way ) on how they better flesh out the complex engagements of dual natures, including masculine and feminine. I deeply value the temple but believe that in terms of its expression of eternal matters it is based in part by what we are willing and able to see within our generation. I expect more beauty to come because it in it's own ways is also sealing our communal growth in knowledge and restoration. Sorta...there's still a major aspect of non-parallel sharing in the ordinances. With luv, BD

Honestly, I'm really not following your logic on this. I would hope most engaging in discussion who are active LDS are not motivated to do so only because someone left. And I really doubt they would have been hindered in discussion if those that left, found ways to be comfortable staying. These aren't really related to each other. I can't relate. Honestly there's a part of me that is always a little sad when I hear someone left or even needed to leave. I'm sad because I wish I could give them what I have in terms of what I see as truly and wonderfully beautiful in our faith. I wish, when I've had moments of knowing leaving is better for their souls, that we could be better and that our members and communities would work through the things that have harmed or do harm others. I assumed before this post that that was a problem I needed to fix. But I think I prefer this problem over the one you're showing. I'd rather be deeply engaged in humanity than so easily disengaged and dismissive of their value. Also, this is the second time I've seen you describe the eternal destiny of those who may not receive exaltation and I find it deeply disturbing. It feels like you're juxtaposing a hell/heaven model of the afterlife over an etiology that is by no means that simple and never denigrates the varying degrees of heaven. In fact, in my opinion I think that was one of the creedal abominations God describes to JS because it goes so against the nature of God and us. Each person, wherever they go/receive are described as receiving "a fullness" in scripture. Those in "higher" kingdoms are described and ministering to "lower." They are engaged kingdoms of glory, light, and deity that differ in glory and role...but are still glorious and have place with God. Each of us, especially those given "more" are called to serve and minister. Personally that knowledge humbles me. It cautions me in how I engage with others. Nearly everyone I meet will be with me in heaven. God finds them so valuable that They have worked a plan under Christ to redeem all but the most stubborn who refuse and reject any goodness. And I'm called to minister here and there. Then and now. And forever. I can't minister and care if I do not see the value and divine light still shining in them...still reachable...still needed and desired as my brother and sister in the Light of Christ. With luv, BD

You would still need women for the true order of prayer, which needs an equal amount of men and women. Even with the most recent changes, that's still a thing. When I was a worker, if there were not enough women in the session, they'd ask us to fill in at this part to complete the session. I haven't gone to a ton of endowment sessions post changes, but from what I could see they called men and women and if there was an uneven number to volunteer, they would ask for the needed amount of men or women to fill the gaps. So you wouldn't be able to complete an endowment ceremony, even with the most recent changes. And symbolically it wouldn't work/make sense, even with the new changes. It's strongly about bringing the two genders together and in an alignment that expands the work of God through said ordering. The aspects that can be done without women are the preparatory aspects of the endowment for the men: the initiatory and new name ceremony. And obviously baptism, the GoHG, and Sacrament can be done without women present. All higher ordinances though entail and need both men and women to function. And since you need both and initiatory/new name are preparatory ordinances for the endowments, you can't have a functioning ordinance without the women's side being done as well. Which makes the work of the matrons and female temple workers (particularly ordinance workers) essential. With luv, BD

I think I messed up the quote a little. The context was those endowed in the temple. But I botched it a little. But that still ignores and many many women are not endowed straight at 18. There's far more than there used to be, but it's by no means a universal thing. With luv, BD

It used to be many many decades ago (read 19th century), but not any longer. Basically if you're over 18 you're apart of the relief society. With luv, BD

I don't how many have had the time to look over the full talk by Pres Dennis. I decided to do so this morning and it both clarified in some ways what she was getting at and was still concerning in other aspects. The full quote comes in the context of her talking about how she wasn't really aware of how she utilized P. Authority for decades. The full paragraph that's being summarized goes like this (basically): "There’s no org that I know of that has broadly given power and authority to women. There are religions that ordain some women to positions such as priests and pastors. But very few relative to the number of women in their congregations receive that authority that their church gives them. By contrast all women over 18 in the COJOLDS are endowed with priesthood power directly from God. And for whatever calling we have, we’re given priesthood authority to fulfill those responsibilities." She emphasized "I" in a way that gives space for correction based on the limitation of her knowledge base. This still has somewhat of a misunderstanding of how priesthood is seen in many of those churches (largely protestant) than how we do. There's still a strong belief there in the "priesthood of all believers" with some people "called" based on personal conviction/revelation to be an ordain pastor, priest, or minister. Compared to say a catholic or orthodox view that has a priest class within their church structure. We kinda fit in between. We have both a priesthood available to all covenanted believers that is semi-organized and can sometimes include ordination (for men). so the statement for me reads more muddled than deeply problematic. It's seems to be a common potential problem when are highest leaders do not have formal training that includes better understanding of world religion. It also doesn't do well in clarifying what's different in priesthood access in those endowed to those who are only baptized. Since most of the callings available to women doesn't need a woman to be endowed. Honestly, I generally agreed with most of her talk before this. Genuinely liked her openness in the beginning part. I think most of us did not understand that priesthood power and authority applied to women due to the cultural focus and policies that focused more on male roles in it. This has consequences in how we (in general) feel about the power women have and bring in their day to day and general callings. I see that shifting and that is good and needed. I do think we need to be clear and well versed into what we already have if we're going to know what it looks like to move forward and what is still truly missing. The thing I found most problematic was actually after this: ": Nevertheless just as he tried to do with Adam + Eve in the GoE, the advisory wants us to focus our attention on what we haven’t been given and not to focus on all that we have been given." I'm not okay noting what we don't have as the adversary's goal. I think there are forms of criticism that focuses on these lacks in a conflict/fight orientation. And that I could believe is of the adversary because I don't believe that's a healthy or good approach to it. It can leave on bitter and seeing people as enemies rather as co-members trying to do the best with what they have and love. But seeing deficit in and of itself is not something from the adversary. It's one of the main ways we may start receiving further revelation. I really don't like a needed process to growth being broadly attributed to the adversary These were my general thoughts... With luv, BD

Thanks so much for the update. I think of her a lot when I paint in oils. When she realized her painting days were finishing up, she mailed me several of her paints for me to use. I concur on her sweetness! Just a wonderful lady all around. I'm glad she's doing relatively well, but hope she can find her home beside her husband yet again soon. With luv, BD

As long as you want them to. I was a temple worker for 7 or 8 years and there were plenty who'd been there longer. My shifts were about 4 ish hours. I think in Utah they lean shorter since there's a larger pool of potential workers to draw from. I asked to be released when I was nearing birth with my daughter. I still miss it even if it was the right call. It's a calling I asked for and a calling I asked to leave. Some people really prefer busy lives with tons of service. I have a friend like that. She has 5 young kids, works full time as a special ed teacher, regularly has callings, and is dreaming of getting a PhD on top of the masters she got when she had 2-3 kids, etc. she also learned English and graduated college in three years. She has had burnout and had to learn to say no to people who tend to take advantage of her time (usually at work, from what I gather). But her idea of slowing down and mine are extremely different. I don't think she'd be happy with my life. I know I'd be miserable with hers. We're happy for each other though. It wouldn't hurt to ask your friend her motivationsin adding a lot to her plate. With luv, BD

I don't know that I'd take much from LGBT discussions on this board. They tend to cue in just a couple of board members who tend to have very opposite beliefs and thoughts on this topic and get more heated and defensive. Which also makes the topic fast paced (comparatively) and aggressive. I rarely engage with the topic here. Not because I'm not interested in it. I am. IRL I listen to an LDS podcast one this, take therapy related courses covering this topic to help my practice, I've worked and love many who fit in the LGBT umbrella, and spiritually hope we find a better space in our faith who shouldn't have a straight marriage. I also, as noted, generally believe in the Law of Chastity and do belief there's something essential/important about male-female sealings. But the way dialogue happens here on this topic doesn't lend itself much to nuance. Even when there is a specific post I want to respond to, the fast pace of these threads makes me hesitant to jump in. I know I can't keep pace, my post is usually tangential to the general (loud) hum of the thread, and it's a question of whether I want to throw my thoughts out there in a thread that it likely will get buried in, and knowing that I will only be able to write 1 or 2 posts a day with more significant thoughts. Which is why I don't usually respond. I'm sure i'm not the only one. I do get frustrated when an LGBT topic comes up in a topic that it's at best tangential in. I know the discussion will turn to it and then get absorbed by it in time. I get why there's hostility to the "more traditional" posters in these threads. Some of the things I've read from them are at best tone deaf and at worst straight up cringey. There's comments that make me cringe and get me frustrated on the other end of the debates as well. With this side though, I know the reactions usually hold a degree of hurt or even self-frustration and engaging with beliefs that the traditionalists hold may in someways be like engaging with the things they were hurt by or dislike about their pasts. I've found that if I engage with them, there's times I will end up become a charicature of the more traditional members. It's happened more than once. With the traditionalists, some of the times I wonder how much they've spent with this topic as an intellectual endeavor or defending their viewpoints and how much they've engaged with it in the pursuit of truly understanding people. That bothers me. For me, I get that my life choices and desires are largely validated by the law of chastity. It's a very different experience to have ones desires and personhood rub abrasively against it. If I'm coming at this only by why it's important to me I'm going to miss valuable experiences and knowledge sources for what we may not know. So when I see this I wonder ... Times up for me this morning. Time to work and garden and paint and parent and grow. With luv, BD

This is interesting as a comparison. Based on this and the thread about your 8 yr old son, I'm assuming I'm about a decade behind you in age. FTR, most of my adult life has been in UT, but I'm definitely not of the mountainwest. So going into adulthood I definitely had different expectations around marriage. I always assumed I'd marry "old," like at 23 (cuz to a 15 year old, 8 years seems like an eternity away). I married 6 days shy of 30 and was single up until 6 months prior to that. So even for US averages for first marriage, I married "late"...though for college grads I married pretty close to average to slightly younger. Though for living smack dab in the middle of Utah county in singles wards with high levels of college student, I was the 3rd oldest member of my ward. It helped that my mom got the impression when I received my PB that I would marry older. Something about the juxtaposition of my career life, higher education, and heck of a lot of paragraphs before talking about a full life before talking about marriage cued her in I guess. Probably also helped that she married pretty late and already had 2.5 kids when she did. So my family pressure was light-ish for most of my 20's. I remember exactly 3 times it came up and always in a way that it was pretty easy to brush off. No 4, she once whispered a q if I were gay. But to be fair to her as far as she knew I hardly dated and I hadn't had a serious relationship with a man. So I was surprised it came up. Still didn't pay much heed to it. My mom's opinions can be wonky anyways. I never wanted to marry young. Ever. I was obsessed in my younger 20's about the stats that increased the odds of a good marriage. And I knew there was a sweet spot somewhere in the 20's that reduced the odds of divorce while peaking on degree of satisfaction. I wanted that number. It wasn't healthy, but what I'd seen of marriage wasn't healthy and I was obsessed not to have that. Over the years I'd chill out about scientific formulas for healthy marriage, but still strongly believed that I needed to be healthy, solid about who I was, etc before entering a marriage. And so did my partner. Most of my closest friends were all married by the time I was 23, funny enough. I knew a lot of people "lost" their married friends as their lives diverged, leaving them feeling lonely. I was determined not to, helping my friends as they all became moms well before I did, i would hang with them with their growing flock of children. I was so grateful for that. It gave me a close up look at healthy marriage, the ups and downs in it, and the difficulties of early motherhood. I didn't envy my friends who had kids in college because of it. Even though I deeply wanted children and marriage. In general I deeply believed in the importance of marriage. But I also deeply believed it shouldn't be entered willy nilly. In Church life, the only time I heard the menace comment was among my peers as we started to age as a joke. YSA wards would usually have a talk or two from the ward or stake leaders about the importance of marriage. Funny enough the only one I could remember was the one I had when I was 27-28. I remember it because the Spirit strongly impressed on me that I shouldn't look for someone else that year. I was like "for realz? I'm feeling a little old here." And God was like "yeah, no, this talk doesn't apply to you now." I didn't receive much counsel from leaders outside of those couple times a year. In my ward by the end I was a bit of an asset. I worked in the temple for most my 20's, taught solid Sunday school classes, and was an LMFT focused on sex therapy in a singles ward. I was well utilized, always had meaningful callings in my ward, helped a number of my fellow ward members, and often worked closely with the last couple bishops I'd have. The hardest part was the environment I was in. The older I got the harder it became to date. I hated dating younger, was established in my career that didn't afford dating opportunities, I couldn't afford to move, and I was surrounded by people in their middle 20's. My dance partners dried up too (I loved to latin dance). So at 28.9 ish I had to join mutual to find a dating partner. I was done being single and ready to get serious about marrying off. Plus I really was nervous of doing a latter-day saints life in my 30's as a single woman. I probably would have been fine, but I was sniffing the air the 30+ singles gave off and not enjoying it. I gave my last talk a week before I got married after volunteering for it. My bishop allowed me to talk about whatever I wanted. I talked about how I was excited to be married but he would always be second to a relationship with God...that that would always matter most no matter where life takes you. Now I'm married, I turn 36 in a couple months, and I have 1 living child. Because I have 1 child people see I could feel like a bit for an oddball still smack dab in the middle of UT county with friends that all have 3-6 children. My closest friends all have 5 or 6. But I really don't... couldn't tell you why. I think in part because no one treats me less than for having fewer children and in my age bracket there's still plenty who have 2-3 children and are capping out. Large families are diminishing even in ut county. And I don't really want their lives. Plus I've had a lot of practice walking to my own beat and differentiating myself from the prevailing culture. I haven't culturally "fit" with my environment since I was 14. Still don't now that I attend a Spanish ward. I've felt God helping me rearrange my expectations and to see the goodness in my own path. I assume I'll have 1 MAAYYYYYBE 2 more kids. But it's gotta be done by the time I'm 39. My Pregnancies have sucked and I'm not willing to push my body and soul further past then. In the most recent years I deeply resonated with the talk by the African elder about having a smaller family and then having a lot of children they cared for in their callings. I mother a lot of adults. I have time and heart space to do it because I don't have a plethora of children. I'm grateful that I married late. I'd have loved a couple more years with my husband in my 20's but can recognize that I wasn't ready for it. I've seen close up how taxing it can be on a couple to "grow together" and am glad that wasn't my story. I'm okay that my story is very different than many active members in the church. More than okay, I'm grateful. But I'm largely rambling because I find the similarities and differences in our stories intriguing. There's no guarantee how someone will feel about being single. I do think it's harder and entails far more intrinsic motivation to remain active in a church that's family heavy when you're single though With luv, BD

My husband had that calling for 12 years. He was telling me the other day that that was part of the reason he was drifting a little religiously. At one point he asked to not be called, but the ward was super desperate. Near the end, He would go to other wards than his family ward so that they couldn't give him a calling. He still believed in the church but was burnt out of being in that calling. He would have laughed at your half-joke, is what I'm saying. With luv, BD

Full disclosure, I didn't answer the poll. I felt uncomfortable answering any of these. I'll try to be brief about why by question: 1.) I believe the church and our currently understanding of the LoC would expect that. I think the general principle underlying the LoC is a true one. I generally believe that monogamous relationships are more stable. I believe there's value in learning to bridle one's passions and match said passion and desire to one's values and commitment in a relationship. I also believe there's essential importance in seal relationships/balance between a man and a woman. But I don't believe the LoC was framed or fleshed out as an idea with others that are not heterosexual in mind (or at least not well suited for a straight marriage). I think there's some major gaps in our etiology and understanding of the next life, the CK especially, and the value and meaning of fullness in other roles that are not these sealed marital relationships. I don't know if that may grow and shift in a way that allows more comfortable space for those that it's best they not enter into a heterosexual marriage. I hope it does. 2. ) I think this is the closest one that I initially would say yes. My only caveat is the language of "sexual activity" before marriage. Since I define sexual activity as anything from handholding with a significant other to intercourse, I obviously don't think all sexual activity shouldn't happen before marriage. 3.) I don't want to be the judge as to what is best for this person. I would hope that they would way the concerns of themselves, their spouse, their children, and their values in whatever choice they make in this. No one should be forced to stay in a marriage. No one should also make a a quick or blanket decision on what one does to their families. With luv, BD

I think that makes sense. I definitely don't see it as a complete replacement with the sort of soul-sharing I have with my husband. Just one that it would be enough for me till I can have him again. Thinking about my closest friendships, I'm more myself with them than just about anyone. The only exception is my husband. Having him is the only thing that made me question my dismissiveness around the idea of soulmates. He's felt like my best friend from about a week into our relationship and I knew I knew him from before...as did he. We are like yin and yangs of each other. Super different in a lot of aspects, but we value the difference, have similar core values, and rely on both to make a whole. I would say it's easier to be myself with him than anyone else, even though my girlfriends will usually "get me" more innately. I feel beyond lucky that I found him. So I do get what you mean in my own way. I also feel super lucky that I have such great close friendships and a large web of relationships outside my marriage. Nowadays that seems to be a growing rarity. Same on my end. I'm glad you can help your daughter with your mental capacity. With luv, BD

Lol! Aesthetic attraction is finding something pretty basically. I joke that women for me are like a nice flower arrangement: Pretty to look at but not to consume(mate). I usually paint and like the aesthetic appeal of women, but I find men sexually my thing. I love my husband deeply and absolutely. I hated the process to find my husband. I'd rather not repeat it with people with a lot more baggage if I become widowed when I'm older. Besides I can't really imagine a better partner for me and he's quite an oddball on so many fronts. So I'd probably have a hard time with not comparing anyone else to him. I can't really picture a better fit. Most guys I dated prior were super short lived relationships (minus one dysfunctional on-and-off thing). I vacillate between liking my alone space and wanting company. I'm happy when I have a balance in both. So sometimes I picture myself in a small/tiny place by my lonesome, painting away and plotting trips. Sometimes I picture myself with a close friend. But I have a really really hard time picturing myself open to marrying again. But who knows. I'll cross that bridge if I ever get there. With luv, BD