BlueDreams

That was always laughable to me, having lived in that area as a teen, it was already not what most would consider country (this was 20+ years ago....but much of my family still lives there). Their current motto could more accurately be described as "cosplaying country." Preferably by the wealthier brackets of humanity. It's average income is 6-figures, 70% of the town are college educated, with large plots given to mcmansion sprawl with a good chunk of the town dedicated to a country club and golf course. It's absolutely part of the DFW's MASSIVE suburban sprawl. "Country" hasn't really been a lived experience there for years. Especially where the temple will sit. On an aside, I have no clue what sort of "healing process" includes trying to shame the other party into capitulation. But that's definitely not what I'd ever recommend for healing anything

Thx. I don't have much time these days. I've ready about half the posts that follow this one and generally like what @MustardSeed said. When I finally read this quote I realized I actually generally agree with the sentiment. At least more than I assumed I did with the general initial set up colored by the inflammatory article. But I would also note, what stuck out to me, was not what you bolded Being a therapist is a very different relationship than being a lawyer, ecclesiastical leader or just your average Joe with a friend. Our job isn't to convince a client to the life choices we think are correct or better. And its one of the things I need to check in myself to try and avoid doing. Early on in my career my opinionated self could quickly get in the way of having the opportunity to help someone heal parts of themselves. The result would lead to a breach in alignment that I needed to repair or at times a loss in a client as I moved well past their comfort and capacities in my suggestions. Every day, I'm brought into situations radically different from my own and I'm asked to help them find their own version of healthy within their context. And I have to have a broad enough space to allow for a different variation of health play out in my therapy setting....even when I see other areas that they may need growth in, but they don't want to address at the moment. So if I hypothetically had someone proactively cheating who has no urge to stop, what I would suggest would be similar to what they ended up suggesting....but with very different wording. My first concern would be to promote relative safety. For example, condom use to reduce risk of STI's that they may inadvertently transmit to their partner. Then I would start down an exploration as to why they're cheating and how it relates to their general values. What answer may come would inform my therapy goals. But I'd generally agree with at least working towards informing the unknowing partner of the breach in honesty....again, as long as there is general safety to do so in the relationship. Abuse patterns would further complicate how I would engage with this, as honesty may conflict with safety for my client. From there I would then work to find a system of existing in their partnership that works within their context. That could range from, working through the betrayal, to discussing openly with their desire for a different type of relationship (one that allows for an open relationship), to making space to really allow a different desire from the partner and avoid aquiecsing for the sake of keeping the marriage intact, to discernment counseling to help navigate and discuss the pros and cons of being in their relationship, to pragmatic concerns about what to do if they don't feel comfortable truly being in their relationship but can't afford to move out or have children involved and fear for ramifications on them, etc. All of this takes time. Months. And the discussions are gentle, exploratory and need to have space to allow for multiple futures that they could have and allow for them to honestly understand that none of them are easy fixes to all their problems. And that there can be beauty in a messy complex experience as we work through it. Suddenly inserting my belief that open relationships are inferior to monogamous ones is extremely disjointed to this process. It would be like telling someone with an eating disorder that I think the WOW is a wise outlook to health and that we need a nice healthy diet and exercise. Like cool...but not immediately applicable and harking it could not only be an irrelevant segue but could inadvertently fuel pathologies that they hold around their body, health, and shames. Which ironically moves them further away from the value. My values are not so fragile that seeing someone desire or choose values different from my own feels even remotely like an attack on them. It just is and I need to give space to honor that they will be responsible for their life in ways that I never will. I'm also very leary of this general movement to have what I value reflected and set as THE standard in every institution and practice. Doing so sets up a system that will have holes in practice and will broaden blindspots. Fostering neutral language and outlooks in therapy, is an imperfect but understandable way to try and circumvent that human impulse. It's not exactly my approach, but I do use the idea at times in therapy. I tend to practice sharing my opinions CARFFULLY and when appropriate and usually sandwiched with a ton of caveats to encourage differentiate over proscriptive orientation. So clients are often aware of my thoughts, without feeling like they have to heed them as what they should do for their circumstances. How I approach self disclosure is often fairly different to many therapists who tend to models that shrink disclosure and work to maintain a very neutral and more reflective model. Which these outlines are a variation of. But at no time do I think of this in socio-politcal terms of what sort of culture am I promoting: one that fits my faith or one that doesn't. That's not the point of therapy. It shouldn't be, IMHO, as it inadvertently restrains agency in another and reduces therapy options for those least aligned with my view of the world. This is all the long winded way of saying I agree with mustard seed that the article and assumptions here deeply mischaracterizes therapy as a profession. Anyways. Thems some more of my thoughts. With luv, BD

Also a therapist and I have never seen anyone reframe affairs as that either. And I'm not familiar enough with uk therapy standards to know how well this is received. In the US there modalities and diagnoses that even though "settled" are still debated. Addictions are a solid example. What I have seen is extramarital intimate relations understood by whether or not the married couple know about it and assent to the practice. If it's a secret of some sort it's still seen as a form of betrayal. I've seen the sense of betrayal expanded to include non-sexual/relational things as well. But never have I seen it completely destigmatized from its role a relational breach. Also, I can't find where in the link it's saying what it's quoting. Could probably say more, but life be busy. With luv, BD

I know this was a few pages back...but I wanted to mention a few things then and couldn't do much writing before this moment (this week was insanely busy). I would note some variation of religious freedom and pluralism has been a part of our tradition from the get go. Our 11th article of faith says "We claim the privilege of worshipping almighty god, according to the dictates of our own conscience. And allow all men the same privilege. Let them worship how where or what they may." It's so ingrained that I wrote most of that from memory of a children's song. The practice of pluralism was also present. JS would often study other faiths or people with sources of knowledge he lacked, for example. And there's several examples, both past and present of the church supporting other faith communities in having access to their worship preferences, including by giving or temporarily allowing our church spaces to be used for their services. Again I would note that there's also plenty of tradition of variations of gate-keeping. Several have been pointed out here. But looking at our faith solely from that lens will miss large parts of our dynamics as an overall body. There is an interplay of complex dynamics that lead to us leading out or retaining boundaries and distinction. I could point to several examples, but I saw this cool one today that gives a great example of how common phrases can shift in use and meaning withing the church. In this video at the 4:37 mark, It talks of a woman who is learning english at the humanitarian services of the church stating "i can be masali (muslim) in UT" He then goes on to explain that the humanitarian arm isn't there to change someone beliefs, but to "add to what people currently have." Which any former missionary would recognize the familiarity to a Hinkley (?) quote that we ""We say to the people, in effect, you bring with you all the good that you have, and then let us see if we can add to it. That is the spirit of this work. That is the essence of our missionary service." The current evolution in the church has included more and more inclusive orientations. It doesn't mean we don't value what we have or think that it is something that could enrich and augment others. There's a reason we still proselyte. But the end goal may be more complicated than to simply "end religious pluralism." I don't think anyone worth their snuff in the church seriously believes that's a goal in the here and now. And in the long term I don't think my identity as a latter-day saint will be the one that remains intact as others shift to a higher way of being like I've arrived and I'm just waiting for others to get there too. That is too simplistic (and hubristic) a take on our faith. This is my personal beliefs that are still expressions of an LDS-centric context. I believe that all cultures and traditions have received important expression of Christ (or the light of truth) as part of their heritages. I believe that I can learn from them, and have learned from them, as I've studied and pondered them. We're all trying to express the part of the elephant we're holding onto blindly and sharing what we know of it together can help us all grow. When I meet someone with different perspectives and faiths, I hope I can learn from them and I try to be someone they can learn from me as well. I hope we can share and grow a little more together. I find Zion in that space. And that goes beyond Christian faiths. I've learned from varying traditions across the world. I hope to learn from more. They're beautiful even if I think that certain renditions may be flawed or have been used inappropriately to harm others. When I've fallen into the temptation to write off a tradition for the errors or evils they've made in their past/present, I'm often pulled back by God and reminded that they also are doing Their work in different spaces too and that no one is perfect. I assume one day we will place our varying experiences of God on the altar and have them sanctified and united into one great whole. But that in the meantime, practicing bringing them together and giving space for others (ie pluralism) is a sacred act and duty for all of us to truly flourish. I have more to say on one other thing. But my baby says I'm done for now with luv, BD

I haven't seen this posted on the main board, so I figured I would. Note: My life is crazy busy at the moment so I won't be able to make much follow-up posts. So think of this more of a conversation starter than me trying to micromanage the convo. Yesterday the church released this hour long video on AI use and religious/faith practice. It is DENSE. I started watching while I was painting and I found myself wanting to rewind, pause, or make me note to listen to it again. This has got to also be one of my favorite statements from the church recently. And not just of the modern application on a very contemporary concern. The video also models how we as a faith are evolving in our faith in language, examples, and outreach. I only made It about a 1/3 of the way of the video. So be forewarned that this is based on unfinished watching. But here are a few observations of what I mean - the video starts with Elder Gong introducing himself, his cultural background, and his family connections to silicon valley. He then expands that by explaining briefly the process of information gathering that has happened to inform this statement. It includes communications with other faith leaders and tech experts. This is something that I've heard described a little bit here and there, but not in such an explicit manner in a video that's getting well watched/received so far. - Gong quotes several different faith traditions. This includes the Pope's recent statement, several quotes from Jewish leaders and the midrash, and a quote from I believe an Islamic Imam or text. These are then placed in context of our own specific LDS Christian tradition (he noted it as Christian, specifically). It was clear he wasn't just talking to our community. But it was a major display of what I see as continued shifts in how we present and engage with other faiths and peoples. Less with a gate-keepy orientation that is part of our tradition and more with a exploratory bridge building "collect all that is good" sort of orientation that is also very much a part of our tradition....but has often been second fiddle. Both in how people imagine a member of our faith and in several of our members/communities. - a smaller little note. Elder Gong is dressed more business casual than the more formal wear of GC. I like it. My day is starting, there's more I could say. But I don't have time unfortunately. Hopefully in the next day or two I can come back to this post. With luv, BD

Other's have answered you and I don't have much time. I don't know If I would have much to add to what's mentioned. As pointed out, no one here has assumed all evangelicals are culpable for the negative experiences of some. But there are evangelicals that absolutely do mislead and gate keep around LDS and other communities they see as false. And it's not a microscopic number. If you continually confuse the FLDS with the CoJCoLDS as one and the same (which people do at least on the polygamy part) that would be a very microscopic number to do so with (they're a group of 3-10K at the moment). It would be more like if I was insisting the westboro group rep'd baptists. Very few do that. When you make the comparison, it diminishes and dismisses very common experiences as latter-day saints that show up in data and many of our lived experiences. I know you're not meaning to, I know we're likely rubbing up against your pet peeves and wounds as you are inadvertently doing the same. But this is how I'm experiencing these posts, nonetheless. When one gets deep into the technicalities of language and labels, one can lose track of the common meaning and experience of lay people in everyday circumstances. People don't usually split hairs on the labels as you do here in regular conversation. Most don't have a historical background to parse their exact doctrinal heritage and pastoral traditions of their current church home/religious persuasion to a specific time or place. There's polls and stats that point to that growing as a trend as "evangelical" has become more and more a political identity marker in the US. For example when I talked to my brother a year or so after he converted to a more mainstream christian faith, he couldn't tell me much more than that he was in a "non-denominational" church that had an affinity to "churches in africa" (note: he lives in TX) and leaned more conservative from what I could gather. But he didn't know the meaning or heritage of many non-denom faiths. I know him well enough to know he couldn't tell you squat about the religious era around 1890-1920. I couldn't either, TBF. And none of that changed one of the most uncomfortable and insulting wedding toasts I've ever witnessed by his (likely autististic and at the time definitely undiagnosed) BIL towards the mormons in the room. I don't think that said brother is representative of all protestant faiths. I don't think he's representative of all evangelicals out there. But it doesn't change the fact that what he said were very common themes I've heard over and over again in different ways. Including from my brother as he painfully (mainly for him) informed me I would be going to hell in he new conversion fervor, before I dissuaded him of that fairly quickly. Instead of the FLDS to LDS confusion, it may be more accurate to picture evangelicals as living in a spectrum of beliefs and practices and cultural contexts that inform their approach to the gospel. Some are more conservative or even fundamentalist leaning, many are more mainstream, some are very liberal in their expressions (such as yourself). The ones that have more problems with me as a member have definitely been more conservative or mainstream. Online when I was younger especially, many were likely fundamentalist too. But I don't question the labels they give me to ID themselves. Lastly, you have been living as a minority in a small largely rural traditionally isolated LDS community. They are deeply intriguing. But they have many of the trappings common in said communities: More gate keeping, more black and white constructs, more adherence to traditional practice, more aversion to change. They're also a unique minority within the LDS faith. They, ironically, may be a better example of what you're trying to describe here by presuming that how they practice and interpret the faith is a universal construct. It's a common misconception that often is bred by those who fit these categories being particularly confident in their positions as basically gospel-truth rather than a possible gospel-expression. Assuming their beliefs are the church as a whole is bound to run into problems. Personally, I will continue to maintain space for a variation of evangelical and protestant responses to my faith. Just as I need to maintain space for a variety of ways to be a latter-day saint. It's not too hard to when I've seen examples of that. But I will also likely use the labels they've given me when I met them. And that has included the evangelical one fairly often.

Biases going in: I'm a natural ludite and have always been a little slow to adopt certain new tech (smartphones, social media, and now AI especially) I rely on tech for much of my daily life interests and job My husband's income in based in tech and he uses AI on the reg for work and specifically forms of brainstorming. I don't. I use it rarely and feel resentful that it shows up automatically on my Google searches. I'm a hobby gardener and environmentally conscious person. When people ask me what I like to grow, I say ecosystems. I love seeing the cycles of life, hundreds of insects, etc that I've welcomed into my yard by growing a ton of things. All that to say I am seriously concerned about data centers, particularly in the southwest/mountain west. Particularly in UT. My reasons are heavily around environmental cost and stress on already stressed systems. We are projected to have longer periods of drought, less snowpack, and inconsistent rain moving into the future. While also having rising demands and a consistent fight over water rights that has left the fed stepping in to make a short term compromise of trying to reconfigure water rights every 2 years. We do not have water for the things we already have in the state. Let me emphasize this again. We do not have enough water for what we already do in the state. That's why the salt lake is shrinking. It's part of why most reservoirs are often low on water. Our current practices are unsustainable. AI is planting their data centers in some of the lower water areas in drought heavy spaces. They're high polluters, significantly heat up local areas, and are heavy water users. And much of that fuels things people don't need or even want. Now I'm not saying there's no use. My husband is in computer engineering and it's seriously streamlined his work. He's used it for several projects, including home ones, as a drafting project or research miner. It is useful. But we need to respect that AI comes with a heavy cost and that it can't be used willy nilly as another large-scale experiment on humans minds, societies, and well being. I'm a millennial and have watched said experiment backfire on my Gen and especially younger in several key ways. Some that we will be paying for for generations to come.I would prefer we move more cautiously than what's happening now. Ps. There's a great release from Elder Gong on the spiritual ethics that released today. I was only 20-30 minutes in but found is super powerful. https://youtu.be/Ts5Z64A0Vv4

I quite like and appreciate Pastor Jeff on YouTube's hello saints. He's a solid example of an evangelical who is genuinely being respectful in his differences with LDS members. But he's also in multiple episodes noted both his own prejudices before doing his channel and what he sees in other evangelical protestant Christians who've done similar or worse. I don't know the denominational pedigree of the teens who would bully my friends or regurgitate falsehoods about us they received from their pastors. Couldn't tell you the name of the faith leaders on the Christian radio channel my mom liked who would give specials or passing comments about "the mormons." They rarely if ever id'd as fundamentalists. It was usually baptists or non-denominational or (yes) evangelical. It doesn't change the sting of the experience and the second hand prejudice it gave me that has taken me years to work through. I should note it's not just evangelical groups. There's plenty of negative stereotypes given to Latter-Day Saints from varying circles. But it does happen. With luv BD

Just a note: i didn't do well with my copy and paste job. This is the last episode in the 9 part series. The overview given is pretty accurate for that last episode. They had two episodes just on women's blessings and healing rituals too, among several other angles to this topic. I'm going to try to link to the full series one more time: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxtDdds6EoqWjXTkVMzpECgw9ZqmR-YJq With luv, BD

The timeline also fits that same period too. I do wonder how much those two are connected

There's a great (far farrrr longer) series I just finished on women and priesthood history in the church that I would highly recommend to anyone interested in theses topics: Don't know if someone has referenced this before, but just in case not, plopping it down here. With luv, BD

This is a little sticky to not include some political context. There's been a rash of more islamaphobic campaigning recently in Texas around this region specifically. For example, I still have a texas area code for my cell phone, even though I don't live there and received a political flyer from a primary candidate broadcastingn about fighting so "sharia law" can be banned "nation wide." Note, this wasn't a whacko politician without a hope/prayer of winning out there politician, it was the incumbent primary campaign for a national seat. Beyond that, there's been fights against Muslim based private schools (several who meet state requirements were at first omitted from funding/programs that other Christian based schools were). And a fight about a planned community around a mosque and containing a said faith based school (it would not be a Muslim-only community, though) was likely the catalyst for much of this. So when I read this, my gut said likely discriminatory. Or at least circling around prejudice.

Weird thought, have you tried garlic chives? They're easy to grown and really do have a garlic taste to them. There's no goodd substitute for mushrooms though 😕

Caffeine is my lifesaver when I have a migraine. Ironically sugar cancels that out for me, so I have maté cocido with a Tylenol when that happens. Also have it on really bad nights of sleep. Like any medicinal plant/substance, I try to use it moderately. Partially because I don't want the dependency. Mainly because I know the effect shrinks if my body gets used to it and can end up backfiring. But nothing has been more effective in dropping my migraines than getting rid of cheese from my regular diet (I can have it a few times a year). I curse the day that i figured that one out. Even if I feel better. With luv, BD

I'm talking about the text not the practice when I say this. It should be noted much of the SAD diet especially isn't living up to those standards period. It's heavily processed, pulled early from all over the world, and often super out of season (the overall vibes of the wow is definitely more fresh and whole foods in their proper seasons), and super meat heavy (I'm not going to debate that comma placement). It also is marketed more for the few food we heavily subsidize to support big ag (see the warnings of why the WOW is given), and is extremely limited in food diversity (again a general sense focuses on a brought range of herbs and grains and plants). And the blessing tied to it as you point out includes being able to walk and not be weary/run and not faint, and have treasures of knowledge even hidden treasures. Excessive sugar consumption fails on so many of these things. ....not that I never eat it. We all have our points of hypocrisy or failure in living up to wisdom. 😋 With luv, BD

You Can also make a strong case that that's against the word of wisdom too.

Ehh. Grandma wants coffee in the morning with her breakfast when she visits for a long stay. A used coffee machine and some basic coffee isn't what I'd call a gift and it isn't even rocking the bank much. It's similar for me to when my husband buys more meat than we usually get when his sister and/or mom visit for longer stays. Or when we bought completely different food for his brother's family that neither of us would want to eat because it was too sweet/processed. Groceries ain't gifts. I'm not going to police what people think is a meal. Besides, I've been a health freak long enough to know that heavily disrupting people's diets can be very miserable for someone. I like my guests to be comfortable. With luv, BD

We did the same for my grandma when I was a kid. FWIW I definitely don't feel the same about coffee or tea as I do with drinking or smoking. With luv, BD

COMPLETELY guessing, since the only one who really knows is your wife. But I'm wondering if the kids buys drinks thing being fairly recent was a bigger concession than she cares to admit and this event triggered her hurt of having what she feels and values in life being compromised. Logically agreeing to something isn't the same as emotionally accepting it. Quick reaction: I've never done it. Though to be fair,I have very few family members who drink that I'm close to. The only one currently is my brother and his wife. But they drink SUPER rarely after their heavy drinking early years led to an episode of alcohol poisoning. We don't usually buy each others' meals or drinks. Personally I probably would have had a food, no drink policy mainly because I'm cheap and never buy drinks period. It's water 98% of the time. The 2% I'd probably be willing to buy an equivalent alcoholic beverage for someone too. That said, I do have more emotional baggage around drinking. I think my bro has a healthy limit now, but I've seen a ton of the negative consequences from drinking and they've been pretty harmful in just the short term consequences, let alone the long term health ones. For me it's not at the level of ice cream and more like buying someone a gun (if guns were cheap...I know they're not). Or cigars I guess too. I get that all of those are very different. But I have similar emotional reactions to them in my body due to values I hold and they're Things I've heard being bought as high-end gifts to somebody. I don't buy these for other people and don't enjoy being around them. I can handle all of these in limited controlled circumstances...but don't purposely seek them out. With cigars, they can make me feel sick from the second hand smoke, so I really try to avoid that. But I don't like guns and don't want them in my house. If someone open carried, I'd insist they store their gun in their car while visiting. If someone loves a good wine, I'd say cool... I don't got that here. There are things that are me specific in health or beliefs that I have no problem with happening around me or buying someone something different. I'm a vegetarian....my husband and family regularly eat meat. I don't eat dairy often. They do. I'm a health freak. Most aren't or interpret that differently. On these, there are very few hard lines on things. Minus chuckarama. I will not eat that overpriced crap anymore and will bow out of family dinners that happen there. (No offense to those who like it). But again these emotionally register differently. Not consistently so...not always logically so. But as I mentioned above, logic and emotional reactions are two very different beasts. I think the more consistent value is a live-let live attitude and a limit to accomodations and respect of differences. I can respect a different choice as long as it doesn't directly effect me and my sense of safety/health in some way. I don't expect people to be excessively accommodating to mine and my daughters dietary restraints on the regular. I get that they're extra and may be limiting to the group. I don't have a need to show respect for other's choices that I don't actually value. I show respect by not insisting they live by mine, not enabling theirs. And I engage and support the parts of their lives that I can readily participate in. But again. That's just me. I should also note, gift giving isn't my love language at all to begin with. So some of this is purely hypothetical. I also am fairly independent oriented. Social acquiescence doesn't come naturally for me and annoys me. So validating others in their life choices when I don't really value said choices equally feels weird. With luv, BD

This may sound stalkery, but I do remember your story. It's something that still bothers me that they still remain a strained relationship at best with you and your partner. But yes, I wasn't kicked out of my family. It's a little harder to pull off to a baby. My mon did try to have me adopted out and it didn't work out. But that was largely for the single parent thing for what they tell me. So usually prejudicial stuff around race in family comes out differently. Either before one is born in the parents' interracial relationships, in off-hand comments or criticisms growing up, or when you begin dating and begin looking outside your family for another. I can pull out a bit of all three in mine. Most of them relatively light, though never comforting. I should note my family may have many many flaws to them, but they don't proactively shun due to the differences in race, religion, or queerness. So that particular wound will never be mine. They've had opportunities to do so with any of those areas. That's not to say they're always good engaging with those...but they're just not that variation of bad either. Pretending "perfect" image over imperfectly relating is a family choice mine didn't make. I really am sorry yours did. With luv, BD

Sorry this took a bit. It's a busy week in a busy period of life. Cuz of that, I haven't been able to read most the posts past this one. So if this is redundant, I apologize. As MS mentioned I don't think it's a waste of time to have you write what you did. It's a needed opinion/experience, even if there's points I may diverge on. If name calling has subsided that would indicate at least some change in attitude. Name calling infers some sort of derisive or derogatory attitude. I'm not assuming perfection or uniformity in this. But I do think that's shifted, slowed, and in many places become completely unacceptable. I would say that's not the only thing that's shifted. Talks have shifted, dehumanizing language has shifted, expectations on what one can and can't be has shifted, tolerance levels have grown too. Again, not uniformly and not perfectly. But definitely better. Because of that, to a lot of your questions I think the response would be dependent on the ward. I don't say that hypothetically, but based on the experiences LGBT+ members I've listened to. Of course, most (all?) of those were US based. I would expect even more variation based on where in the world they were meeting, reflecting the local cultural moors and values. Personally, if I had a magic wand, I would hope for kindness and a welcoming attitude in all of the questioned hypotheticals. Also, You may be confusing my experiences with notatbm's (I can't think of a gossip experience I've had related to race. I'm pretty bad at being aware of drama around me and am a bit of a wet blanket to it since I tend towards humanizing responses). This is the part we probably would diverge a little on. I've mentioned before (eons ago, I'm sure) that I don't think gay is the new black exactly. There's overlap, namely in that they're a group of people that have faced prejudice and limitations in our church. But there's key differences and those differences are probably going to effect how things unfold. For example, though I disagree or have concerns with our policies around LGBT folk, there's still more access points for service and integration into a church setting than would have been available to someone who looked like me pre 1978. There was nothing I could do "right" that would give me access to spaces that you at points likely did have and other gay/queer members do currently have. This was the severest cut based solely on who you are, not what I do or express. The limitations now are more expression-based. That doesn't excuse them as acceptable, but that shifts how we think of them and what it means in terms of policies. This issue will also stay relatively the same size within the church and can be both more personal or distant depending to one's access to family or friends who are some variation of LGBT. That's again, going to effect the pressures to change and engage differently. lastly there is several positive doctrines/practices that contradict with full incorporation of, say, a gay married couple. This is near the reverse experience for the black priesthood band, where there were clearer scriptural edicts that contradicted varying policies and interpretations that supported the ban. I think this will take a reexamination of how we think of a number of doctrines and practices that we currently have to meet that. It will likely be more complicated than the more simplistic policy that policies around African descended members took. I want to say more, but this is tangential and may be its own thread. Besides it's highly speculative on my end and I'm running behind. I also disagree with your timeline. Maybe? Who knows....Things can shift rapidly. And this may be on the list of things that rearranges to a better policy faster than we presume. With luv, BD

That makes sense to me. I think my only hesitation with fundamentalist is that it's used in the common context of the flds faith (which is obviously very very different). But it does better match the fundamentalist protestant movements at the time better. With luv, BD

Dude, you're whitesplaining racism to a biracial chic like this is a novel concept to me or something. I get it. You did dating "wrong" in the sight of your lily white community. I often was the wrong for others (first out-of-wedlock child born of a black man In a mixed and complicated family is not exactly a winning LDS pedigree over here). But I'm not really interested in playing racism olympics. What I see from you is that your experience is frozen in time and place. You're quoting something 40+ years ago from a book most now likely haven't read as if it equally applies today. And you're assuming what people thought and did half a lifetime ago has not shifted, softened, or changed in any meaningful way. Monson and Peterson aren't even alive anymore. They've been replaced by people from diverse backgrounds. And monson showed signs of shifting from his previous views well before he passed. This is also ignoring any evidence that maybe, just maybe, things have changed in 40-50 years. Dismissing the GA's and 70 in particular doesn't make any sense. They're often doing much the grunt work in guiding areas in the gospel, their voices are the majority of the messages given in GC, and it's often from this pool that leaders may pick a new apostle. On my mission, I never had an apostle come to talk to our mission. I definitely had 70's come though. They put a lot of trust in the running of the church in the 70's and they've purposely moved to try and increase regional representation. They've also expunged references to some form of condemnation of interracial/cultural dating, replacing them with several quotes disavowing seeing interracial marriage as a sin and labeling any form of racial prejudice as a sin that one must work out via repentance. But again, none of that counts because you've pigeon holed leaders into the quotes and views that hurt/disgusted you as a teen 40 years ago. That's not fair to them or you. It just fosters bitterness and it ignores the good that has replaced several of our bad fruits. Are we perfect? No. Many of the things you mentioned echoed experiences I had dating 10-ish years ago (married "late" by mountain west mormon standards). But it has improved. It continues to improve. I'm sorry you can't see that. Being stuck in the past is a painful way to live. With luv, BD

Thanks for the added context! I've read a couple history related books that touch on this a little, but I definitely don't have the fluency with this era to write what you did. I should add I do get why there's concern about a return to this time. It's had an extremely long influence in the church that gave us a culture and image of greater uniformity and deference than there once had been. And the more conservative (fundamentalist? Orthodox? You choose the word) take has taken a long time to balance out again as just a specific outlook in the gospel rather than THE gospel. Though of course, those most aligned or impacted with views of this era likely still see it as THE gospel. I don't think there is. All the books that I could think of that I've seen quoted or referenced on LDS podcasts were not from apostles. They're usually more scholarly or academic (ex. rough stone rolling, religion of another color, the givens' books, etc). I also don't know how much those have filtered outside the US and outside of English speaking areas in particular. It could be that the algorithm knows me and knows what I like and sticks with that. But overall I think we underestimate how much "the church" is an increasingly decentralized and local experience. How we interpret and engage with "the" church is dependent on what we were exposed to and view as valid/important viewpoints. Someone may have a very rigid, gate keeping, cautionary community/family/mentality and that becomes "the" church. Another may have a looser more exploratory relationship with religious doctrines and experiences in their local faith community/home and that becomes "the" church. Another may have a more pragmatic service orientation to it and that becomes "the" church. Etc. These varying expressions of our faith have varying streams of principles/voices that support and validate said views. But we often struggle to recognize that our way is only one way of engaging with our faith not THE way. Again there was a (long) period of time where a more uniform assumption about varying beliefs was common. That is not today. Nowadays a more simplified core doctrine is promoted (ex Christ as savior) and there's more diversity/flexibility in how that is expressed and what people find added value in. Where one finds that can be wide. From family, to a war/stake/branch, to a favorite podcast, to personal study and revelation, to a book, etc. Which again, is probably why I don't mind his calling. He's one voice in a sea. He's not the sea itself. With luv, BD

On Gilbert's calling: I can understand and think there's probably some credence for concerns mentioned. Realistically I don't think he'll be my cup of herbal tea come GC. He's not the first in our current line up of apostles that I struggle to connect with in terms of their talks. I've had a number of experiences that have helped prepare me for that disonnance between believing their calling is of God....while also struggling to connect with their most accessible expressions of said calling and disagreeing at times with certain conclusions or assertions they've made at times. It's taught me in its own ways as to how I see their callings in comparison to my own or others in theirs. I also don't think he was the only one who could have filled the job. There's others who likely were as well prepared or capable who weren't selected for varying reasons i'll never be privvy to. I do assume some of those reasons are practical (ranging from access to visas and movement in and out of the US to language capacities to things the current leaders clicked with). I'm not expecting to be pleasantly surprised and really love the guy. I'm also not assuming the worst case scenarios I've seen people jump to. Both of those aren't realistic conclusions IMHO. One specific is having someone like McConkie or having disproportionate influence in the leadership/culture of the church. That seems unlikely considering there are others already there with greater seniority who have very different outlooks and methods from him. No offense to him, but if his SLTrib interview is any indication, he also doesn't have as much charisma and dynamism as say McConkie to gather that much influence. Most apostles serve their terms well...but fade from memory and view over the years as they continue to shuffle in and out. We've had a little over 100 apostles in our Faith's history....I can only name or recognize a handful that didn't live within my time frame. I assume most are about as well versed as I am on history of the apostles. Having prolonged, distinct influence is rare and likely more and more difficult due to the shifts in how the quorum functions. Likewise, the likelihood of him being a prophet at some point is also slim. He's the youngest, sure....but not by much and there are several close to age to him with higher seniority. And either way that's a problem for a few decades from now. Plus the context of influence in the church as an apostle has shrunk due by sheer size of the faith. Back in 1979, when McConkie was an apostle the church was roughly 1/4 of the size today, far more homogenous, and more concentrated in a few areas of then world. That allowed and supported more uniformity in views and it was easier to reinforce that assumption in that era. That is not our time now. Lastly what it means to be "Orthodox" has also shifted over the years. And how that's discussed and presented likewise has shifted in ways that's extremely unlikely to revert back to. One man isn't likely to move that flow. Silly example: this man obviously believed in having a big family. His is big, even for Mormon Gen x standards. I'd be surprised if he doesn't mention the importance of family and children in a few talks to come. But that likely won't shift most people's family planning....and it definitely won't return us to families of 5+ kids. So I'm not excited, but I'm not willing to jump to conclusions about him either. With luv, BD