Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

BlueDreams

Contributor
  • Posts

    6,547
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by BlueDreams

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. Honestly, just to be a bit of a contrarian. It would be the exact opposite for me. Being romantically involved with a woman sounds creepy for me. Like completely antithetical to my general romantic desires. But sharing my soul with a woman doesn't. Sometimes I've pictured the ideal relationship if my husband were to die would just be me having a communal home with one of my female friends. I share my soul with them all the time. My husband's well aware that I need community to be fulfilled, not just him. So though it wouldn't be complete, It would be enough to satisfy me for the rest of my life as I feel like I've lucked out in finding a wonderful husband who I want to keep for eternity. I don't need another. If I never married and that were my only relationship ever, that would be hard. But it wouldn't be un-doable either. Personally, I like the model of attraction that focuses on quadrants of attraction or aversion that notes at least 4 areas of attraction: social, aesthetic, erotic, and romantic. I'm not erotically or romantically attracted to women and even a little averse to both (and thus why I consider myself straight), but I'm absolutely attracted socially and aesthetically. Which is probably why it's not a problem for me to picture that scenario. People range and are fairly dynamic when it comes to this. I think our biggest mistake can be assuming that since it wouldn't work for us, it wouldn't work for someone. With luv, BD
  14. It can range a ton from what I've seen. Some seem to be a little too dependent on what their local leaders advise them to do. They tend to go to them way too much for things they probably should talk to God about first. Others place very little emphasis on it and show more dynamic capacities to take in or dismiss local leaders. I've seen just how having a shift in leadership can shift the expectations in a ward or stake. Sometimes fairly drastically. And I've seen how local cultural trends influence how messages are taught and received in the local body. I think we also seriously underestimate just how much family dynamics acts as the first line of interpretation and doctrinal understanding/application. I once had a client where it became quite clear that their father was their main model for all things church and God. Needless to say, it came with some unhealthy expectations. Completely agree. I find the phenomenon around cultural realignment so interesting. Especially the covid round. It was really interesting to watch people who were used to having the church not confront and even validate their worldview have to toggle with suddenly having their worldview openly conflict with general church leaders. Personally, I think it's partially why it usually goes so slow... there's not another means to really move a body of millions but at a snails pace. With luv, BD
  15. This sounds like an argument of semantics. To me that just obfuscates really understanding lived experiences. Whether degree or kind doesn't change that the experiences of queer folks can be very difficult to comfortably toggle in a church setting. A lot of that is tied up in the implications of what the LOC means for them that it never meant for me. Even with a solid stint as a single woman. If you can't see that, you're not really engaging with the stories or queer latter-day saints. It doesn't take much to see it. With luv, BD
  16. i think we're talking about this in two different ways. Having top-down order, does not exclude anything that I said. It doesn't change that where one gets the leaders is from the lay members. Any form of "professional" training is generally just long-term experience serving in differing church callings. I also don't know how one would measure to get to the conclusion of "most top-down organization." Also, on this point, from my experience "the church" is usually not that cleanly defined. Most people experience the church on the local and/or familial level. These arenas tend to strongly influence what messages stick out to them from general leadership and how they're interpreted/engaged with. What this looks like varies drastically from member to member. Remember both Smac and I are active participating believing members. I know there is plenty we don't see eye-to-eye on in our faith and how we engage with the world in general. The same could be said about me and BB (minus our affinity for the color blue). But what's described, reacted to, and propped up as "The Church" when I see this is usually only a specific strain of religious practice and ideology. Every time "the church" is brought up in a negative light, it's usually when something supports this smaller framing. Which is why when some people outside of our faith (via former or never-members) have engaged with me, they're quite frankly confused. I do not fit the stereotype. I do not fit their expectations. Instead of this helping to broaden a perspective and add nuance to what it means to be a Latter-day Saint, it tends to be dismissed as a weird outlier to maintain a flat image of "the church" as a monolith of thought and practice. Lay leadership is the bulwark of the institutional church. It includes every leader in a local and regional leadership role. If one is ignoring this as part of the institutional church, they're missing a massive part of the actual institution and that's a problem. With luv, BD
  17. I can't speak for BB, but this is also a difference that I find annoying. There isn't a clear delineation in the church between leaders and lay members in the church that can be found in other churches. So, for example, in a protestant or catholic faith, one could make more of this distinction. A subsection of their population receive specialized training, schooling, and/or are ordained to hold a very specific office. They'll hold credentials and they often live and engage differently on the regular than their lay members. Lay members may participate in limited volunteer/paid positions in the church. But it's limited without the training (which could also be considered its own form of sub-cultural indoctrination) That is not how our church works. Leaders come directly from existing pools of lay members will to take on specific callings. The culture of a ward or stake especially will be directly effected by who is chosen for said position from the lay membership. These communities can drastically shift in focus just based on who is called from the existing pool. Who's chosen is in and of itself a cultural reflection of what is valued or seen as needed for a specific area or call. So leaders are more so reflections of the cultural focus of our communities moreso than other christian faiths. It's kinda like saying, I like/neutral to mexicans but I don't like mexican culture. That's not as easily differentiated and I would assume most would find that a questionable statement. When I see this stated, I see people kinda giving a caricature of the church to have as a punching bag for all they things they don't like about our faith, while giving space to ignore that or be okay with "exceptions" within the culture for members that they do like or engage with okay. As someone whose usually in the "exceptions" category, I find that personally frustrating because I don't actually feel seen within my context and it allows others to continue to demonize my context while insisting they do like me. I hesitate nowadays to describe something as overtly wrong...but I absolutely worry that her inability to say no and recognize limits in service is a recipe for serious burnout. With luv, BD
  18. I know a few people have already answered you and I don't want to dog pile as I agree with all the ones that I saw respond. You quoted someone on compassion and disagreeing with their life choices. I do agree that people can hold compassion and disagreement at the same time. I would say, though, that compassion does entail and need deeper understanding of a person/people for it to truly be there. I find that if there isn't understanding compassion will always be limited to our own framework. And it leads us to conclusions that are entirely wrapped up in our own reality rather than fully grasping the reality of another. Your conclusions and assertions of sameness leads me to believe you don't really understand this. Which leads me to assume there's a limit to the compassion felt. It is not hard to see that there is a difference between what we currently ask of our queer members and our single, widowed, and divorced members. Personally if you don't feel a bit of the conflict they experience in that while seeking out their stories and experiences for better understanding, I question whether there's depth to ones compassion. I should note, I don't have a "right" solution for the concerns presented in this subsection of the population. But even if we don't have a major shift in doctrinal applications, I do think we're missing something. Particularly in our understanding of the CK, what we focus on in the church when it comes to fulfilling our calls on earth, and how we incorporate members who do not fit the most comfortable moulds, doctrinally. What that looks like, ain't entirely my call. With luv, BD
  19. It's an interesting tangent. My first reaction is solely on a pragmatic level: I have no clue what that looks like and in my head it would be a methodology bound to fail quite often. Before hitting up the most conflictual, let's go with the least. Say a person disaffiliates. There family did not do anything rash like disown them. They still maintain relationships with those they care most about in the church (family, some close friends). There's generally a live and let live policy in said friendships but there's still moments of anger or feeling little lost in transition. The problem with this one, is that most members wouldn't have a solid idea how to help them fill their gaps. They can talk to them (some will feel comfortable doing so). But what they may say may be small comfort or show their gaps in how they can help them. What it looks like to not be a member can't really be answered by people who are. I think the closest I can think of are more therapisty answers: finding things that still have meaning and value to you, keeping the values that you still like from a church setting and trying to find similar substitutes, engaging more with the things you like and filtering the things you don't, etc. But they're generic to some degree. Each person would have to figure that out to some degree on their own. I would also assume their anger would be less intense, considering they landing out was relatively soft. It's a whole different story if it isn't an ideal transition. As in the people around them are not supportive or are struggling to accept the shifts in expectations in their relationship. They come from a community that's more insular/black-and-white in their thinking. Maybe people in their lds sphere were abusive or harmful to some level. In which case it's not just asking the blind to lead the blind as in the first example. It's asking someone to have trust in a person or entity they don't trust and maybe shouldn't trust in certain cases. In which case, that would be really stupid. Unfortunately, I would assume these are the ones that would be most likely to have a pretty pronounced anger phase. The other problem I've seen in this is that when a person who leaves needs to talk about the problems they had with the church, there's also a difficulty of translation. Some of their experiences will clash with a believing Latter-Day Saint's experience. As in the Practicing latter-day saint may not have received the same messages they did...sometimes from even the same sources. Some of these conclusions can be a bit insulting or lead to people feeling fairly defensive. This can come off as invalidating at times. Or worse, it won't clash, the believing person sees it as a good/right thing, and the non-affliiated person will inadvertently reinforce negative assertions by how they may respond. That's not likely to reduce anger or bitterness. This also doesn't help with the problem that many a times people can be broadsided by the shifts that their loved one is undergoing. There's an aspect that can simply be unfair in terms of expectations...that the person who's had years to process, think, and shift their views now expects a person who's had far shorter time to not only adjust to sometimes drastically different expectations and dreams they had for their loved one but then support them in navigating moving to their new status. That can be a lot to ask, emotionally. I don't want to be a complete naysayer on this. Even as I wrote this I could think of messages on ways to help encourage positive engagements with leaving members. (messages on how to engage, messages on how to accept differing paths and desires, on finding and support goodness even when it doesn't look like what we'd hoped, Discouragement of harsh behaviors, etc.) But I think one needs to be realistic about the degree of limitations that will be there no matter what. And on this one, there likely always will be. With luv, BD
  20. I've been following this off and on through the thread, but haven't responded. I'd note that the first post that started this line of thought by @Danzo was not as absolutist in its wording as you're currently taking it. He at no point used all or nothing wording. He used "not always," "can be," "many" when making his argument. That makes me assume that he recognizes parts and aspect of said cultures (it's not a unilateral culture) are good. I certainly didn't see anyone assume that abandoning aspects of culture, means that what happened to Native tribes doesn't matter. My brother's mom had him go to school off the Rez to go to school up in UT to avoid some of the problems that happen in the area. It was a decision that increased his chance of well-being and solid education, though it did reduce his cultural ties. There are definitely problems in many Native american communities...though I would probably note that many of those are the heritage of generations of mistreatment that stitched trauma responses into a culture norm and left many of these communities in the US in depleted lands with limited resources. Some are also trade-offs. I don't think I've seen a post that insists all native american cultural practices are bad or worth discarding. Just that it's false to assume all are good. My family has a long list of people who have had similar decisions to make about what they bring forward or try to reconnect with/maintain fI arom their OG culture in the US dominate culture. This includes Navajo, nigerian, texmex, moroccan, and peruvian cultures. There's things that are really good and worth while to keep, even when they run counter to the dominate culture. There's ones that aren't and were not picked up. And there's aspects that having ties to other cultures give us vantage points to recognize problems in the dominate culture as we've engaged in it. I am not an absolutist. I am not a relativist. I have beliefs that are found in both. For example, I believe everyone makes sense if you have understand their context (relativism). I believe everyone has the light of christ that can help them find truth and right in their circumstance (absolutist). I believe we're all likely wrong to one degree or another (both???). And I believe just because something or someone can/should be understood that it means their actions or justified (absolutist). Most cultural practices are just contextual reflections of values and preferences most commonly utilized in a culture. Most cultural aspects are just neutral (relativist). I've seen the problem when relativism goes wrong...and man can it go really wrong. The biggest ones I deal with are people's inability to name something as bad in their lives or the lives of others, which enabled toxic patterns that harm them or others. I've seen when absolutism goes wrong...and it can also go really wrong. Fueling feelings of superiority and/or rigidity. The can also fuel blindspots and can lead to really unhealthy advice/practices. When someone reaches these extremes, I'm not exactly sure which I would describe as being worse. They both can have some nasty consequences. Personally I don't think the answer to absolutism is relativism. I think there's a healthy middle ground that allows for both flexibility that is grounded in guiding priniciples. I think these philosophies just lead to a false dichotomy that leave people most invested in them unable to see the pitfalls to their own logic. With luv, BD
  21. I would assume something similar. I was curious to see the podcast lineup (it's hardly representational....which is common for podcasts considering they usually recruit via word of mouth and who they know) and it showed a range....but the early episodes absolutely showed more that were addiction based. Why and how a person leaves would also likely effect that. Some "leave" in the sense that they stop practicing their faith or going to church, but still hold many lds-centric beliefs or concepts. Some LEAVE repudiating just about everything they once knew as they do so. And some leave(?) as in their reasons aren't solid one way or another...they just kinda drifted away from an active LDS identity. I would assume how one leaves and why would reduce or increase your chances of returning. With luv, BD
  22. I know I mentioned this a while back on the thread, but it likely got buried. I made a comment when our ex-bishop who was teaching brought it up at the tail end of class (great timing on his part ps. It guaranteed we went over 7 minutes 😅). I go to a Spanish ward, so controversial topics tend to lead to very lively discussions from multiple ward members until we run out of time. This was no exception. There was a range a reactions, a couple moments of distress, so I raised my hand and decided to try my hardest to explain myself in Spanish (it's not my native tongue, so I can stumble when I'm using a few unfamiliar words). I mentioned that I wrote a study paper about it in college and that it made better sense to look at it as symbolic language that used different words to represent rebellion from the gospel. People were nodding heads. I also mentioned that we do not know what was meant by this phrase for them. Then I made a smaller joke that obviously I don't change color, minus during the summer and winter. People laughed. The tempo in the room changed and the teacher immediately decided to land on calling someone for prayer to end class. I've been the lone voice to push back on other rhetoric. I've learned how to do it in a way that doesn't immediately feel confrontational, even though I've usually completely underminded their point. And like what others experienced, what usually happens is that it gives permission for others to speak and say otherwise. The one time I regretted not doing it was during a train wreck of a law or chastity lesson when a YSA bishop went to town on terrible analogies and refused to let anyone leave for the worst sex talk I've ever witnessed. I made up for it by getting the next bishop (the other was released before I could meet with him) to allow me to do a presentation for the ward on sex. Usually in the wards I've been in, my opinion has been respected, I'm usually thanked for it after class by someone who was relieved to have someone speak up, and my abilities (usually around my therapy background) have been actively sought out to help the ward in different ways. I've unofficially counseled or collaborated with a number of my bishops, particularly when I was a YSA to inform them on sex issues they might face with their ward members and on presentations. With luv, BD
  23. Seeking, these conversations and awkward experiences have been my life since I was 5 (its the first time I remember race and ethnicity being imposed on me). It was my birthright in many ways when I entered a white rural family that still used the term negro to describe black people in the late 80's in a country where systemic racism is still not fully acknowledged. If I didn't try and accept slow hauls and limits to growth, I would have had to cut off relationships both in and out of the church years ago. (I still have but it's a calculus rather than a simple math equation). I would have been a lot more angry and bitter than I currently am. In short, I would have burned out. And that's not hyopthetical....I've seen others do so. I've also learned to be very patient with the process. I've had more than one experience of sitting in a class of mostly white latter-day saints going through stages of figuring out difficult topics around race (I assume i would have had the same experience in a TX class if I'd gone to college there, considering the attitudes I saw in my suburban texas community as a teenager were far from enlightened). It would often take the entirety of a semester for people who were generally millennials at a point where people are the most mentally flexible at a time where we were nearly as reactively polarized to see a world they at best only superficially engaged with. That's a semester of mandatory readings, uncomfortable exposures, and assignments that included personal introspection to move the needle to at least recognizing the fingerprints of systemic racism and general prejudice and the effect it has on others. So I've come to accept that change most often happens in degrees before it can change at large...which then must be bolstered by continued changes by degree yet again. I don't immediately assume cowardice in most people, particularly those in a situation I'll never have to balance. It's usually not a major emotional pull for many people. It's more often an attribute we impose on others to self-validate our hurts. And the label doesn't do much of anything beyond that self-validation in my experience. Well, that and shut down conversation. And confrontation isn't the name of the game in the church most the time...nor should it be. They're slowly trying to encourage a zion community and continuing restoration withing balance to how ready the people around them are ready to take in more. They're also limited by the extent their own views and perspectives can expand to see the extent of a problem. And they're old. I don't mean that as an ageist, I mean that more as an indication of what at least the Americans were likely to have lived in a circumstance where race played at best a periphery role most of their lives that they never had to directly engage with for very long. They're trying. They're talking explicitly about the antithetical nature of racism to the gospel. Those statements are getting stronger and more consistent. Calm mentioned the lesson shifts for the youth. They also have other concerns that I want them to focus on when it comes to a variety of other topics and concerns related to the gospel. But the real work IMHO is on the individual/community level. Will the teacher or facilitator talk about this when it's that lesson even if it's a topic people get squeamish about? Will the people apply and recognize the application in themselves even though many are raised in a culture that assume racism is another person's problem? Will those close to them have meaningful discussions about how what they just said is prejudiced or racist and not aligned with god and the church? If that doesn't happen, they could shout it from the roof top and basically nothing would change. Any more than getting a vaccine publicly stopped vaccine skepticism. With luv, BD
  24. I know Calm brought up the covid vaccines, but I just wanted to second that example from my own experiences. As someone who is mixed race, I have my own list of concerns when I was dating. I had more than one minority friend tell me their personal experiences around dating someone who's family turned out to have serious racial prejudices that made the relationship overall untenable. I had hints of it when it seem like I would get more attention from white guys when my hair was straight instead of curly. I'd secretly gage whether I'd want to be in a relationship based on the responses I'd get. I'd see it in how I would still get more attention as a mixed woman than some of my friends who were full black. It was my own mother who told me (believing I might add) in the curse of cain...an ham...and a long while later would start affirming the whole valiance in the pre-existance thing. My family holds overt prejudices and racist ideas on all sides. H*ll, from time to time I find a prejudice I wasn't fully aware of based on stereotypes that never went challenged. I have absolutely no faith that a strong statement will do it. Racism is not that easy to uproot. It's a frustrating long drag of a work that's been generations in the making. Personally from what I've seen, people don't shift with forceable language very often. Half the time the double down. Many will find a justification or means to maintain their position with barely a caveat in it. Nowadays, many will just mutter something about placating the woke crowd and dismiss it. That said I do have hope in the future. Many of my peoples were easily convinced for any other interpretation of these passages. There isn't a deep sense of connection reflexive defense for the old interpretation, so it's sometimes pretty easily shifted. My daughter was born in 2019 and her world is notably different from mine. When I'm frustrated, I try to remember how long it took me to change traits about myself. Then I try to imagine that process repeat a million times over for an entire people. Zion is a long slog, not a short stint. That said, I welcome any and all messages against past and present racism. I always will. I just assume it won't fix the problem. With luv, BD
  25. You're fine. I can' keep up with the last couple pages anyways. Rhetorical question: How difficult is it for you to understand the phrase "dark skin" in our current context in our everyday lives? It's really not that difficult for me. No matter what, it's universally assumed that someone would have naturally darker skin when compared to another. It's not that hard to understand. But this small quote is saying basically that we don't fully understand it in this BoM context. That should immediately give a moment of pause. Major pause. Come follow me could have easily been paired with this quote from the gospel topics: This one is not simply focused on present assumptions for present people (which could be assumed in CFM), but also theories of the past as well. Not for me. It was when the only theory I had easy access to were the ones currently disavowed. But when letting those go and allowing space for a different lens, they became parts of a coherent motif that would use contrasting language to paint a picture of something dark, forbidden, tied to death and/or evil. What those were were usually described in detail in the chapter and preceding verses (common ones includes, secret oaths, death oaths/murderous hearts, rejection of God's covenants, cursed land and redacted promised lands, and behaviors that were considered inappropriate to the covenants/commandments of God. It would even include hierarchical forms of discrimination). These only become problematic when one insists it must be about race. Again, just for clarity, moses 7:22 is the second time black is used. The first is this: This is really awkward to read as race. There is no context that would insist one immediately assume as much. As I mentioned the JST OT passage about Canaan describes a "veil of darkness shall cover him, an he shall be known among all men." What's preceded as distinguishable is the people dwelling in tents, being divided in the land, a land that is hot, barren and unfruitful (which are very similar themes/signs of divine disfavor in much of scripture, including the BoM). 7:22 then reads as a shorthand for something similar to 7:8. Our fixations on race, our heritage in racism, bore this interpretation. It's not explicit in the text that they must have had a racial shift. We have to assume that's the right interpretation and then follow it, even when it's clearly disjointed. And even though recent interpretations from official sources are actively moving away from that interpretation. When that's gone, it's really not that problematic. It's a basic literary devise that ties into a really really really common symbolic use of dark and light/black and white to contrast good and evil/life and death...or in this case, something wrong with a people that makes them a people's version of taboo. It also becomes relatable. As in there are messages there that actually do relate to our day. Which is kinda the whole point of the BoM....a book purportedly brought forth for us now. I often wonder when this comes up, how do these passages that you see hailing to race/skin color, tie in to our present? What message do you feel we need to receive from understanding that the Lamanites were supposedly cursed and marked with dark skin so they weren't desireable? (I should add, the curse and mark are not separated in the BoM as well. They're used interchangeably. So I refuse to do the common thing of trying to give some distance between the two to make it a slightly more palatable form of racism). Personally, when it was the only working theory I was given...the answer was none. It was just a big nothing-burger that substituted as a stumbling block in a book I otherwise would find deep and personal answers in. When I let it go, I received far more. One last add on thought: its not the individual phrase that I focus on, it's the context in how that phrase is used in the text or recent context (in terms of CFM) that helps me define the phrase. Simply having the work black, blackness, dark, or darkness in a verse or chapter does not necessitate we're talking about a literal racial shift. With luv, BD
×
×
  • Create New...