Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

BlueDreams

Contributor
  • Posts

    6,556
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by BlueDreams

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. Hi, I know you've received and answer or two. Gonna throw in my own. There's a couple problems with this. 1.) It's still an assumption with only the numbers to really back is up and our modern assumptions of what makes someone most distinguishable. 2.) Pragmatically both groups would have had to marry out to genetically thrive. The pool was just too small. --- the following is my assumptions and interpretations --- What I assume is more likely, is that the lamanites married out and had more local populations in their communities more than the nephites could...not that the nephites weren't doing the same. The Lamanites' standard and desire to maintain their og traditions were likely far more flexible than the nephite population, especially at first. Since the nephites were more strident and less flexible about shifting tradition, they would have probably expected more conversion in order to marry and maybe even expectations on what it looked like to live or participate in their communities. I remember while reading 2 Nephi that in some ways the book reads as guidelines for what would be the boundaries of their community. With the verses in 2 ne 26 making it clear that anyone was welcome by God into the fold...as long as they were converted to God. Here's a portion: (Not another verse that talks about darkness in terms of beliefs not skin tone) Some of this is tied to a context of nephi's prophecies for the distant future...but it would be weird for him to declare this and then assume something otherwise for his own people. This was their standard for intermarrying to avoid a larger concern for them: drifting away from their traditions/God. That would be a main focus particularly for nephi who starts his record talking about the wickedness taking over in Jerusalem and the deep need for the brass plates. It would come up again well later when they meet a population that has lost the full understanding of their old traditions. And Nephi would also highlight stories of his errant brothers that showed how quickly they'd drift towards doubt, unbelief, darkness, and a willingness to loosen on their traditions. So though this an assumption, I think it's more congruent with several themes in the early texts especially. With luv, BD
  10. I've quoted this twice on this thread alone. I don't know why you clipped the next sentence out: "The nature and appearance of this mark are not fully understood." Nature according to Google means: "the basic or inherent features of something, especially when seen as characteristic of it" Appearance: "the way that someone or something looks" So, again, unless whomever came up with come follow me has a different working definition for these words...the plain reading should be clear: we don't know the basic or inherent features of the mark. We don't know what "skin of blackness" meant to Nephi Gospel topics race essay gives even less wiggle space. As for the book of moses and Abr. Moses has the word black/ness in exactly two verses in the same chapter that never mentions skin at all. Rather it talks first of "a blackness" falling on them after describing a cursed land. It's then shorthanded after. Unless you're including cain getting marked...that passage doesn't even have "black" in it. Abraham has even less. It just talks about "egyptus" when talking about ham. funny enough, if you go to the JST version of the OT passage where canaan's cursed, it describes it as "a veil of darkness" coming over them. Not skin. Veil. So you have to purposely interpret skin into the POGP passages. It's not spelled out there. None of the books make it explicitly clear that the only obvious interpretation could be genetic skin tone. I also mentioned, I sincerely get why it's a default. We still live in a culture where we default to assume racial differences since they've played so prominenly in how we oriented our societies. It was the dominant theory for the majority of the history of the churhc. I won't say it's dumb. But if you can't toggle the first sentence with the second sentence of a paragraph let alone explore and look at larger contexts to see that this isn't as clear as one may have come to assume...it is hard for me to see how that isn't at least a little lackadaisical, however unintendedly so. With luv, BD
  11. For a hot minute I thought I'd major in genetics with a desire to go into human genetics because I was deeply interested in it. Studying Chemistry helped me decide there's better ways to study humans with luv, BD
  12. I think it was a very very common (almost universal) opinion in the earlier days of the church. I'm not sure of the BoM peoples. Part of that is just pragmatic. There's not a major tone difference between native populations and and middle eastern people. So what would have mostly stuck out was maybe hair color and texture diversity and/or facial features... not skin. I think the closest I could imagine actual skin tone is ironically what rodheadlee was joking about: tanning. If the lamanites were wearing very little they would have tanned more and that has been an indicator of class distinctions in past cultures. Of course wearing very little would have easily been seen as going against socio-religious values too for them. Some of the dress description would have likely looked like their siblings had chosen to run around in their underwear. With luv, BD
  13. Lamanites started with laman and Lemuel. They were actively violent and had plotted to kill their brother more than one time by the time the reached the promised land. The conflict between them and Nephi was so prominent that their dying father basically pleaded for them to stop it. I would absolutely consider that violent. They would continue to have a relationship with plenty of animosity to come. We also don't know what they were already doing that was setting them apart. But they already had behaviors that indicated they were doing things deemed inappropriate to the traditions of Nephi and Lehi that they would consider offensive towards God's covenants. Garment are often symbolic markers of behaviors. If someone decides to where white supremacist paraphernalia, it's a pretty good indication they're a white supremacist. If someone dons certain religious clothing, it's a safe bet they likely ID with certain religious groups Clothes don't make behavior, but behaviors and beliefs will often inform our clothing choices. You can read some of my previous posts to figure out what I believe 2 Nephi refers to. particularly this one: For the record I don't think it just refers to clothing. I think it refers to any behaviors, actions, and emblems they adopted over the years that the nephites would see as a rejection of the true covenant. With luv, BD
  14. I won't bely the point too much. I just want to say I don't doubt that you experienced harm in the church. I've seen it happen before. I've also seen the same system do quite the opposite...sometimes the exact same means and avenues. I get a really weird window into the ways local leadership flavors the experiences of members. And each time, for better or worse, those experiences become "the church" for them because most people don't get a random sampling of differing people in differing areas in their church life to compare/contrast religious experiences. From the ones I've heard of or interacted with, some are above and beyond stellar, some who really dropped balls, are horrible. and even psychologically abusive. Most are just doing their best with what they're given and support their members as best they can. I even had one weird case where I ended up being a mediator between a bishop and a member. Because I'd talked to both of them individually before (I should note, with written permission and clear communication as to what I discussed with my client), I knew both of them were good and just inadvertently pushing each other's buttons. Sure enough when there was someone they trusted in the room to help facilitate communication, the relationship shifted and became healthier. I didn't assume you were using an alternative definition. I think I was wondering what is your cut off for what would be considered apologetics. I'm also not sure why this person would need to talk about authoritarianism in a video that's obviously not focusing on such concepts. And since most people who fall into apologetics probably don't experience the church as authoritarian, I don't think it would be felt or experienced as an elephant to them. Expecting others to engage with the church in the language and manner you see it, isn't realistic IMHO. From an LDS stance, it reminds me of the people on this channel I subscribe to on Youtube where a pastor is exploring different aspects of the church. When he doesn't get the same uplifting experience and picture of Jesus from the BoM as some members do, they can get annoyed in the comments section, wondering how he could have missed it. We're bound to see it differently, assuming it's obvious and apparent may not be true. With luv, BD
  15. I think it's a little more nuanced than that personally. I see the church more as trying to balance movement and growth with how well members can adapt to change with how much leaders are able and willing to accept change. And I think there is reason to be cautious with condemnations of past peoples. I see it as parallel branches from the same tree of a racial caste system the US marinated in for most of its history. Speaking solely for myself, when I read this, I always think about the US as a whole...the world they were products and inheritors of. There wasn't a well known and generally accessible system really nailing it when it comes to race relations at that time. At best there were small often isolated communities that had more egalitarian cultures based on race within the US, and small often considered extreme groups advocating for fundamental change. I've never believed in Church as a specially ordained group where prejudices, biases, and perspectives can't hinder, taint, or confuse the work. The opposite pattern shows up in just about every book of scripture and especially within the book of mormon. When I came to my aha moment, what it also entail was a moment of epiphany of "oh, of course they interpreted wrong. Their world and experiences were inherently far more racist than today." I don't condemn my past ancestors. I prefer not to measure people by an unobtainable standard none of us will reach in this life (ie. Perfect and above the trappings of their times). I also don't ignore their blindspots, prejudices, and flaws. They are what they are: humans. Most of whom were trying to the degree they knew how to and to the degree they were ready to accept. At least I assume so, because most the people I meet are usually trying too in that same framework. With luv, BD
  16. That's only if they're cosplay acceptable type of bad boy and you only have a summer fling with them. Any longer and it'll lose the magic
  17. How sexy do you find someone in a kkk garb? Or a nazi outfit? Or *fill in the blank of symbolic wear that infers violent tendencies and conflicting beliefs that could risk your group, order, or personhood*? There are several ways we can demarkate someone as a risk using clothes, style, and behaviors. Usually that's enough for someone to find them unappealing. With luv, BD
  18. I can relate in a different way. I've mentioned before that I've always had a strong anti-authority bend likely rooted from family dynamics that were messy on a good day. A person just telling me this is what is done, isn't good enough for me. You have to give me a reason for me to do something. Luckily I've found or had many reasons for my core beliefs that keep me in the church. But there's been others that weren't good enough, fell short, or were holey. I don't do those. I don't believe those. My personality trait can have its own form of weakness to it. I suck at following groups for example...I tend to wander or stay in things that I want to see. I have a hard time taking people's opinions at times and have had to work to make space to see things differently than what I see. I'm still not always good at it. But one of the unintended perks is that it highlighted just how much my life wasn't "controlled" by the church. Control for me entails at least two things: It entails a person's willingness to submit to others in their life and it entails the capacity of people or entities to render means to manage other's behaviors. Not all control is inherently bad. When I had a lead foot and got a couple of tickets, I was being controlled by the state to better manage traffic and public safety, for example. I would say most of the control that the Church can actual yield is boundary maintenance (As in how one engages in the group) and indirectly via cultural influence. Both of those are further brokered via local dynamics. Honestly, it's fairly weak. There's plenty of avenues that my life has almost no direct influence from the church. My career was decided based on my own interests (and if anything was encouraged by church institutions and local members along the way), my interests have never been squelched, where I travel isn't limited, what I do in my free time isn't monitored, how I raise my child has extremely limited input from the church and is still largely decided on whether I approve of said input, etc. If I left the church tomorrow, it would both entail a major rearrangement in my spiritual life in terms of beliefs and how I engage with them (I'm assuming) and very little in my pragmatic one. I'd wear more sleeveless shirts and I'd crack into some green tea. Depending on how I left church, I may still even attend and participate in my ward since I enjoy the community connection. It can have more impact on engagement in specific institutions (like BYU), but that is again a voluntary engagement. Cultural influence is more what I see people struggle with. Even when there's almost no immediate overt consequence to going against the grain (at least in the church....there may be more within a family setting...but that is extremely dependent on how the family incorporates their religious beliefs into their family culture). That's where personal willingness really comes into play as well. If you struggle with codependent or enmeshed patterns you'll be more bereft by ones local culture, leadership, and unhealthy messages. If you're more differentiated, there will be less struggle with that. That's oversimplifying, but I've seen that pattern in my own life and the lives of others. When an apostle, bishop, teacher, leader, etc in the church says something I disagree with...I disagree with it. Sometimes I say my disagreement out loud as a different perspective, sometimes I don't bother since it's not an appropriate setting or time and I don't feel like I have to fix the world, and sometimes I see if I can help by talking to the person individually if it's an area I feel qualified to talk about. I have to go, I wrote more than I should and lost track of time. With luv, BD
  19. Meadow, we're going to strongly disagree on this one. The backbone of my disagreement is that one of the main focuses of my job have been working with clients with histories of abuse or are currently in abusive relationships. This includes directly working througn a range of abuse, from the "mild" of emotional and psychological abuse or neglect from a current partner to the extreme of child sex trafficking. It's included stories of what I would absolutely consider abuse via religious leaders, religious fanataicism, dereliction of duty in the face of abuse, and harmful local cultures within the religious faith.. It's included working directly with victims and perpetrators. Because I live in UT in an area with a high density of members, almost all of those stories come within an LDS context to some degree. I couldn't respond to your post yesterday because my morning was spent getting frustrated about a case that includes severe codependency from a complicated case where a person married their rapist. It was beyond frustrating and I didn't want that frustration to bleed into this post. Today's a new day, so I think what I prefer to land on is simply that I strongly disagree with you. Not because I don't think the church has and can do things that are harmful to it's members (especially on the local ward/stake level, which are the levels that also most reflect local culture and flavor...certain cultural contexts seem to have more problematic approaches). But because what your pointing out doesn't meet the qualifications for psychological abuse for me. I don't think any of us fully know how the church as a collective ends up moving positions. I personally don't doubt that argument and different views points play a role, based on a few things I've seen or heard of. On the local level, I've been a source for information on sexual/relational concerns more than once for local leadership. So I do know they do reach out for professional opinions and don't seem to be discouraged to do so since it's happened on the reg, particularly when I wasn't mom of a youngin and had more time to do so. I also know from what I've observed, is that my knowledge source is not the only concern they're balancing out. The local leadership is also usually trying to balance the needs and concerns of their local ward who have a wide range of concerns, experiences, and openness to certain topics. When there's a more closed community there's less that can be shared or explored. When there's a more open one, there's more. I've seen both and many in between within my little slice of the LDS Church communities. what this usually means is that I'm negotiating with community leaders (ward council, rs presidents, PEC's, and Bishops usually) on what to incorporate or cover in presentations. When I've offered my expertise, this happens more. When they seek me out there's less of it. Also what is your definition of apologetics? The og vid I'm assuming is an apologetic work, but I don't think the theories in general are a work of apologetics. I can see where you're coming from and also disagree with the conclusions you're coming to. There's several reasons I could go into about why I see it differently, ranging from cultural shifts on what is ok both in the church and the wider culture(s) it participates in to what is balanced and focused on, to even the context of some of those messages. But I think this may just be better to say I disagree and that that there is more than one conclusion one can make on the same information. With luv, BD
  20. For better and worse, this is not how the church tends to shift on things. They're not into big repudiations. What usually happens is that it goes quiet and theres a quiet correction in how contemporary material words things. That's what's happened in the last 20 years or so. Find me a single statement in the last 2 decades from an apostle or prophet that talks about this topic to the general people. I can't think of a single one. The closest is what I quoted above, but I'll quote it again: Again, there is no caveate to this disavowal that gives an exception to the BoM. Lastly a "simple reading" is never simple. We go into that reading with our perceptions, cultural contexts, collective relative histories and personal experiences guiding what sticks out. That's why each time a person reads scripture, what sticks out and how they interpret it will and can shift. Personally as a biracial person the flaws in this common "simple reading" were always maddeningly contradictory. It flew in the face of my lived reality, it didn't make sense within the totality of the book of Mormon, and it usually needed other extra theories to kinda prop it up and make it slightly less of a racist interpretation that were equally not backed by a plain reading of the BOM. Most the statements relied on even then, were getting literally old (as in from the 1960's to 80's if not older). Even my teenager self with all the powers of a teenager brain could feel that something was absolutely holey about this interpretation. But I was also given no other interpretation to work with for a long time (felt like a long time from my teenager self...again there's been radical shifts in this in my lifetime, particularly in my 20's). So in the silence the old narrative would get more validation than other interpretations. That shifted as more and more voices began to get more time in the LDS public spheres. The "simple reading" was only simple when largely only white people from a US era that was overtly racist were the major ones reading, utilizing, and interpreting the text. There was less diversity in perspective to give people reason to pause and think about the inconsistencies and problems in the reading. Those that saw issue with it were still few in voice and/or influence. That's shifted as we move further and further from said era and more voices have been added to the conversation and are valued in it. it was artificially simple for decades, yes. But It was never a simple reading for me. If I had more access to voices and quotes like the ones shown in this thread, I wouldn't have had a moment of difficulty with having the clarification, because the other option was contradictory on a good day and this one leads to a far more coherent read. I assume I would have been similar to my spanish ward this weekend, who largely had no difficulty taking in my comment and a couple similar ones when it came up. with luv, BD
  21. This seems like a misuse of the word gaslight. No one is saying that these passages were never taken to mean skintone or race and that there weren't commonly accepted interpretations that was apart of mainstream LDS thought for much of church history that assumed this to one degree or another. That would be "gaslight-y." Shifting positions and saying let's move away from a modern lens that over focuses on race as a defining marker Is not gaslighting. Pointing to a less contradictory and more internally consistent interpretation of scripture is not the same as a psychological shorthand for a form of emotional abuse. Personally it really annoys me when people over extend the definition of gaslighting to mean just about any form of argument or discussion that encourages people to re-examine beliefs and perceptions. That is a healthy and necessary activity. No one grows if that can't be a thing. That form of mental shift is not the same as the mental manipulation I see my clients who are emotionally abused go through. Its a real phenomenon that is really dangerous to the person's mental health and grasp of reality. This tik tok vid is by no means that, even though I somewhat disagree (I'm not a fan of promoting it as a single tangible thing. My personal interpretation was that it was a shorthand for several things that was antithetical to nephite customs and safety). Disagreement about the meaning in a book is not a sign of being gaslit. It's a sign that we can differ in opinion in the church. As for actual church position, the current one is the one in the gospel topics essay about race and priesthood. There isn't an asterisk saying *except in the book of Mormon where it clearly states otherwise and no other interpretation could reasonably be made of said passages. The current method that it is taught in come follow me is with this statement, which quotes extensively from gospel topics: So basically the official statement is we don't fully know what was meant. There's no statement saying that people shouldn't explore the context to better understand the language used from a non-racialized lens. We are in a church that believes in continuing revelation and restoration. We're not beholden to everything past leaders assumed. Reinterpreting scriptures was there from the start and was a foundational concept in our faith. It shouldn't be surprising that an old racist interpretation is dying out as an explanation for these passages as we collectively grow away from that aspect of our past. It shouldn't be surprising that as old theories are disavowed new ones are sprouting up that are more consistent with the actual context of the BOM texts, let alone the Church's current position. It's not a bug, it's a feature of the church.* *Also not saying there are ways the church could potentially do this better. With luv, BD
  22. @jkwilliams I have a minute to finish off my thought. On what I mean by internal consistency. There's already been really good answers about the problems in the texts. Namely that there's multiple smaller accounts where there's obviously so little physiological difference between the nephites and the lamanites that style or dress and speech are the big indicators of distinction. Even where the language of "skins," "blackness," or "white/fair/delightsome" are used, the context focuses on behaviors, degree of righteousness, cultural cues, and degree of animosity between the two groups. The big ones are 2 Ne 4, Jacob 4, Alma 3, 3 Ne 2. All of these expound on the curse/mark language with a context that focuses on their differences in behavior and level of animosity. When they discuss looks, they focus on dress and body modifications (shorn heads, marks on foreheads, loin cloths, etc). So it means focusing and prioritizing only on the word skin and filling in a modern definition, rather than letting the context on how the phrase in the passage is used in said passages to define the term. The cursing/mark are used interchangeably in language and always have a caveat of changing based on a person's righteousness and animosity towards the Nephites. So these changes are basically immediately. As people that were "black" suddenly become "white" within the time it takes to convert and align with the nephites....this can lead to 3 convoluted solutions. a) That rate of mixing with existing populations lightened or darkened the decedents of lehi (this is entirely inferred, again based on our modern assumption that focuses on literal skin color as the defining feature of group ID and ignoring much of the actual text) b) that they had a unique form of cursing that has literally never happened in any other scriptural context except maybe the PoGP....but definitely not in recent times. Which is disjointed and contradictory to the idea of God being and engaging the same with Their children since forever. C) JS made this all up and juxtaposed common racial thought into the text. Which only works if you have a poor understand of the evolution of racialized thought in the US. The BoM is only a validation of this if it's read superficially. It conflicts and contradicts with a lot of thought and even how people at that time discussed race. Especially the more you look at the details around it It prioritizes and ignores other conversion accounts and descriptors in the BoM and the language used in these texts that very much parallel or use similar phrasing, but doesn't have the "skin" language directly tied to it. Examples of this include earlier language in 1 ne that describes the "multitudes" of people who "obtained the land of promise" as white and "like unto" the nephite pre-slaying. (This has several problems of a literal reading. It only focuses on assuming the gentiles that "obtained the land" were literally white or looked like the nephites before they were out. Said Nephit group, who had intermixed and lost all labels/distinctions for 200 yrs with the lamanites and other ites and were largely a political distinction based on what traditions they maintained by the end. Said "multitudes" that would entail waves of immigrants from every major continent in the old world. So you have to put a ton of assumptions in there to make it work). There's the mary descriptor, that when you look at the context of the beginning of the chapter, it's clear that the language is paralleling the description of the tree of life. But we don't assume Mary literally looked kinda like a shiny tree. It ignores several other conversions where skin language isn't used at all, but curse removal definitely is. The biggest one is the anti-nephi-lehites, that's described in lengthy detail about all the ways they changed. It focuses on their means of industry, their correspondence and relationship with the nephites, their religious beliefs, their covenants made and finishes by saying the "curse did no more follow them" (alma 23). Again one can assume it was about skin tone if you want, but that's not remotely mentioned in the context of the text and there was plenty of space to mention it. What is emphasized is again spiritual behaviors, alliances, and general customs. (It also started with a major description of conversion of the king that again uses of light/dark to describe his conversion...but this time it's a veil that's lifted.) There's also a passage in Helaman 5 that is also ignored. This one does use the word darkness in it....but this time it relates to a cloud. The lamanites and nephite dissenters are surrounded in a cloud of darkness that a voice comes out of. The Nephite missionaries among them are seen in the dark cloudiness with shining faces looking like angels. They end up asking "What shall we do, that this cloud of darkness may be removed from overshadowing us?" Which starts a pretty spectacular conversion that leads them to the traditions and doctrines of the nephites with the promise that "the cloud of darkness shall be removed from overshadowing you" and then being encircled by a pillar of fire. Which starts even more lamanite conversions...and again the same big changes are mentioned: changes in allegiance, changes in spiritual beliefs and customs, loss of false traditions. It also ignores the use of whiteness when jesus comes. He comes to a people who were technically already united in earlier chapters and described as becoming "white" earlier in 3 ne. These are the more righteous folk of the lands...so it's a fair assumption they fit into that "white" category. They're introduce and engaged with the ways of Jesus and then become "white" again "like jesus" (3 ne 19). This whiteness is described as being white like his "countenance" and "garments"...so much so that it exceeds the whiteness of anything else on earth. Later on, post zion society for 200 years and when both groups have become thoroughly corrupted, there's several descriptions that hale back to these narratives to help describe how bad the people have gotten. Again, there's no reason to ignore these verses. They directly parallel the language and descriptions used in the major "skin" oriented verses. But when blackness or whiteness is interpreted from a modern era lens that has/had an unhealthy fixation on racial differences, these get at best de-prioritized or completely ignored all together. The text becomes weirdly disjointed, the curse is only partially removed only a couple of times even though it is always conditional on covenant bearing, the mark and the curse are differentiated even though the text uses them interchangeably, etc. In the end it made more sense that it was a symbolic shorthand for several major problems than as a literal singular descriptor. It was less disjointed. Skin tone doesn't work the way the word "skin of blackness" and its derivatives are used in the BoM. And the same phrasing is readily switched out with other imagery and overtly symbolic terms that have the same black/white motif but are obviously not about skin tone in a way that is obviously referencing the OG cursing. Again, I get why this negotiation with the text would seem at first non-sensical. I really do. Except when I really immersed myself in these texts...what became more non-sensical was the traditions of our fathers. So following the example of the BoM, it seems better to let go of the errors of their traditions for a greater light. With luv, BD
  23. I honestly don't blame you. When I first was introduced to the idea I dismissed it. Not once but multiple times. Usually before getting through the first page of whatever argument was being made for non-racialist readings. Even though the race oriented idea was frustrating on a good day and nonsensical on a bad one, it was hard to see beyond generations of cultural assumptions/interpretation that was given to me as a fact. I watched a presentation by Marvin Perkins that finally made me ask "What does it look like to read these passages as symbolic change instead of skin tone?" I went through every last passage of the tone changes and then every passage of a major lamanite/nephite conversion sequence...and then moved out to the PoGP and even the aspects in the OT that are taken that way. And suddenly these disjointed dissonant passages actually flowed and made better sense in a pattern of covenantal language. At this point I can't see the other interpretation really. It doesn't make even remote sense compared to a symbolic reading. With luv, BD
  24. It's been a branch of thought that's been gaining steam for at least the last decade. I think I first ran into the idea maybe 15-ish years ago. So if this isn't a thought that you think about more regularly, it wouldn't surprise me if you missed it. Though there were a lot of organic parallel thoughts popping up before and around the time of the gospel topics essay, particularly in certain circles. I don't necessarily subscribe to one physical symbol being THE thing that made the mark. I think it's more likely a series of culturally/religiously significant markers or behaviors that would have made the dissidents undesirable to the nephite people. Obviously a traditional reading that focuses on skin color will seem more initially intuitive. But IMHO that's only because the BoM was borne into a culture where the most distinctive marker of social order was race. We still live in part in said culture (though it's reduced in potency). It's the one that if you grew up particularly in the US, would be most available as a reason, the one that got little to no push back for generations as it fit within their context. The actual book is super inconsistent if read around literal change in skin tone. Not only logically, but within the internal definition and use of the mark/curse. I have clients tonight. But I can probably explain that more later this evening. Overall I would say there's a few lines of thoughts that I've seen when people tackle this subject in general: - Finding a more semi-palatable view of a historical/traditional interpretation. This usually includes trying to differentiate the mark from the curse, assuming a form of faster intermarrying among the lamanites, or just stubbornly holding on to the early interpretations as THE only way one could legitimately see it* - going with with official "we don't know" what it is, that laid out in the gospel topics. This'll follow the line of thought laid out in the gospel topic which also notes that no one's skin color is a sign of a curse. (Can't remember exact wording and don't have time to look it up) - last is assuming it's a symbolic reference or other real object that wasn't skin. Clothes is a common assumption, but there's other versions. This probably fits me best. *Note: this is not just from more traditional leaning LDS, but also people who view the BoM as some form of fiction written by JS in some way (whether inspired or not). The other two usually are held by people who utilize the book as a historical and/or inspired work. With luv BD
  25. I had a similar experience when I was heavily pregnant. I walked out of an event with a friend. We were both big with baby, it was in downtown salt lake, and we needed to walk by a bar where two men were outside. Instinctively I tensed, knowing circumstances like this usually would give me unwanted attention that left me feeling at risk or intruded on. Instead we had a nice question about where we got some cookies we were holding. The response stuck out to me because of how weird it was from my usual experiences. It was so nice to not be noticed. The release of that weight was palpable. Who cares if my hips constantly hurt. Another time a few years before while not pregnant, I was walking down the street in sandy UT to a local Target with my study cards and my full body therapist business attire. It was all of a mile away from my office in broad daylight. I got honked/catcalled twice and a man in a truck tried to see if I wanted into his vehicle in a manner that felt very solicity. After that, I tried to avoid the main road, especially during lunch hour. Speaking of prejudices, I have a firm distrust of male truck drivers. Almost every man who has honked, leered, or catcalled me as a pedestrian has been in one. With luv, BD
×
×
  • Create New...