bluedreams

Members
  • Posts

    141
  • Joined

  • Last visited

bluedreams's Achievements

  1. Sorry, I won't have time to go through this point by point. But I wanted to thank you for summarizing your thoughts. I mean that sincerely. There were other parts that triggered more scripture study into language that's tied to the curse post-3 Nephi. It was extremely fruitful. My study feels more complete. We will not agree on this any time soon, of course, and I'm sorry I cannot better explain myself at the moment. It's jumbled in about 10 pgs of notes. Pulling out one or 2 points feels incomplete and like trying to pull out a single thread from a spider's web. Maybe I'll post them here for people to see in a week or two. There's a few other places that I want to present the information to first. With luv, BD
  2. First off....it's saturday! I cannot tell you how happy it is to be a long weekend. I still won't be able to write much. Yes, but they also believed the BoM took place over a larger geography...and there were parts that he was surprised by. JS also believed the Blacks of his day were still under the curse of Cain and Ham, even though he translated Gen 9 as "veil of darkness" coming over. The problem with these connections are apparent and largely non-existent unless you go in already believing that dark skin is a curse, Cain and Ham had the same descendants, and that those descendants are now all Africans. And yet he believed blacks were the "sons of Canaan/Ham" and the "sons of Cain". He translated, but it doesn't mean he didn't incorrectly interpret meaning from it based on his day. JS was just as fallible as any other prophet. So basically I think the translations are true, but that their interpretations were based on the racism of their day. Yes, And that BY thought that, and a litany of believers and prophets previously. There was plenty that they thought on topics of color and scriptures that I most definitely believe are wrong and feel no need to perpetuate as correct interpretations. The direct wording is to make them not enticing as seen in 2 Ne 5:21: "as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them" Followed by "And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities." The antonym of enticing is repel, repulse, or disgust. Loathsom is defined as disgust or repulsive. v22 is repeating or marking the fruition of v21. It is very apparent from the language that scripturally, whatever the skin of blackness is defined as, it was meant to make them repulsive to the Nephites. k....running low on time, I work the temple in the afternoons, so even my saturdays aren't the freest. I still want a little time to dither about . THe rest will be shorter Shorty: the first part seems contradictory to me that God is somehow above race.....and then supposedly created racial distinctions based on curses to subsections of the populations. It wasn't. They search and search and found 1 dude who was a descendant of laman. The rest were Moroni's men (Nephites). I thought of that too, but the people would get close enough to exchange large quantities of liqour....they weren't hiding in the corners. As for the 1st point, we'll read that consistently different. At this point there is very little difference (minus the strippling warriors, who don't take place in this account). Exactly. The same wording is used in parallel fashion. Again, my point is that the terms used are interchangeable veil=garment=cloud=skin=mark=countenance. Yes, and no, and that's the point. After 3 nephi, skin of darkness is never mentioned again. I don't have time to read Mosiah 26 right now, but not all of the Black/white motifs are an official explusion. Many of the black/white motifs are to the loss of the Spirit. But it's not the only way to describe. But the motif and parallel language is used to the stongest of conversion and some of the most powerful rebellions against the ways of the Lord. That's certainly one interpretation. Let's compare it with the text itself. .I already have compared it to the text. I see it very differently See above My readings, I feel, indicate an immediate change and removal of the curse/mark. The reason we often haven't recognized it is because the wording used doesn't state skin. I read that very differently now. There were the ones I listed and the fact that the reading/interpretation of such fits so snuggly with 19th century sogiological ideals including the one-drop rule, segregation, distinguishing of capacities by race, etc. All of the readings defined black and white by what we knew at that time of black and white. And that these scriptures were used to continue with that racist ideology. That the groupings are more complex than the initial reading, as you've pointed out. That white is white in appearance...until it's not for some reason (like the second whitening that you see as symbolic) I'm not saying that the motif is used for every case in every moment of sin, but that it fits better in the larger motifs used throughout the texts. Again, my reasoning, is fidelity to the plain text. I read nothing but the plain text for it. I get and understand that the text is very able to be read the other way. But I'm saying that it's very possible to read it in another fashion and for it to work. I never did because the arguments for them seemed forced. I stuck with the other paradigm and made it work, even though it never really made sense. Someone gave me a real response that seemed very feasible (it was in the blacks and the scriptures presentations tagged here). I went to read and discovered more from doing so. But as you mentioned, I'm ok to disagree. Personally (and no offense to you as well) I think this older view is probably going to die out. I am curious though, what did you learn, spiritually significant from this view of literal phenotypic change. I know what I learned or saw from it on note of spiritual significance when I believe a version of it (it's still funny to put that in the past when it was about a week or 2 ago). But I wonder what you saw. I never believed in what I've called the light switch color change, so it would be nice to know how it enriches your spiritual knowledge and fits within that. On this point I probably won't debate or prod but just say ok. I like to understand as fully as I can another's perspective... it's who I am and even part of my degree now. Also the only reason I mention spiritual experience at all, is just to have an idea of where I'm coming from. Often the wording I've seen against the idea is more about the idea of wresting or rationalizing the scriptures away. I wanted it to be understood that the process was exactly the opposite for me. Yep, fun stuff. As have I, sorry it's not more in depth. I would post my explanations/notes in full, but I'm still reading over them and looking through them, and whatnot. Have a good weekend With luv, BD
  3. Genesis and Moses speak of the same accounts and all of them come from the same faith tradition. And all of the ones I've mentioned are interpreted through the same man (JS...remember that I used the JST for the Genesis 9 verse). All of them have at one point or another been interpreted in the last 300 years by our cultures to infer darker skin. That is enough reason for me to compare, contrast, and draw parallels. It's not a new literary universe. I listed 7 terms used interchangeably to explain the same thing. They're used largely symbolic with a very few times being literal (though in a way that's usually visionary or singularly exceptional) that's and all having a very different significance than what we normally would give them. It's unnecessary to give skin a special singular literal meaning when so much else simply isn't. Because skin can still be define as skin and fits well with the other 6 terms used anyways (such as a covering, film, etc). It's one of many descriptions mentioned for what the "black skin" made them to the Nephites. Frankly, ugly's a little gentle considering the book prefers the term “to make them loathsome” to the Nephite which is defined as repulsive. There are a list of implications that are just as lovely when this is taken literally. You do realize, you're describing segregation right? Exactly, and IMHO it is our 21st, 20th, 19th, and 18th century sensibilities that read into both biblical and BoM texts the racial ideas of their/our times. Yeah, still read it as excessive if they all looked the same. Think of it this way. If the personal was black and he went up to a bunch of black guys....why in the world would he shout out "look, I am a black man!" I'd be astounded if they didn't look at him and said "behold, it's captain obvious." And more problematic, is how he would explain having a bunch of Nephites behind him. It should be more along the lines of "look I'm a black man, pay no attention to the white burly men behind me...no really they're lamanites too, I swear." And there's a problem that they'd have to look and ask for descent. If he was one brown guy in a sea of white men, there would have been no need to really look around. They needed someone who knew the culture and the language natively. The problem still stands. The story still reads holey to me. It may not to you. But to be frank I'm not likely to be convinced otherwise anymore than I am 7 day creationism. I get where you get it. I've seen your reason in various forms throughout my life. I reject it for the various holes and painful implications and the overall fracturing of what is a beautiful motif. To be exact, they all (all the various -ites) turned white like Jesus during prayerful union with Him. It’s in 3rd Nephi. Though from my readings the scripture that describes the lamanites turning white en masse is actually the third major account of en masse change from dark to light. The other two used clouds of darkness/pillar of fire and light/dark sight as their chosen motifs to describe the same thing. Sinning is not the same as excommunication. It's not the same as abject seperation from God's covenanted/chosen people. Still much of the language and black/white motifs that describe sin and conversion parallel it anyways. As an immediate indication of integrating into their ways, behaviors and actions. Again Black = separated from the ways/covenants of the Lord. Then how the Lamanites are black is thoroughly described in this verse (shaved heads, red marks, wild, blood-thirst….in everyway removed from the lives of the Lord’s covenant people). The mark is a sign of where the Amlicites now stand. They brought the curse literally upon themselves....and this passage also make it pretty clear that everybody who is cursed/marked (this is one verse where curse/mark are very much used interchangeably), brought it upon themselves (everybody). If the mark is literally a dark skin tone, the children have no accountability to receiving that from their parents. No one chooses their color. If it's traditions/culture/separation the mark can always be removed by repentance. The removal of the curse/mark follows a simply solution through the BoM: repent and it's immediately gone. I’m not sure if I follow you….No, that’s not at all what I get from that verse. The reason is pretty straight forward: so their children won’t believe in incorrect traditions and lead to destruction. Think Solomon, the people left on the earth after the City of Enoch. The curse is incorrect traditions that are loathsome and lead to destruction. It's because the true ways would begin to corrode as other distorted traditions are allowed in. It’s happened many times in the OT, NT, BOM, and our day as well IMHO. And I believe the re-interpretting started 2-3 centuries ago with their identity and race issues that was intrinsically embedded….I worked within what I saw which was fairly similar to your reading. I did so because the alternatives brought up were not good enough. This was holey, but I’d largely accepted that and moved on, believing. I finally listened to one that gave a good explanation and also had the problems re-assert in various ways. I explored the issue more deeply after that. My perception has changed. Yep. And racism can still be seen as condemned throughout the standard works with or without that interpretation. I said nothing about auras. And as I said before, the same language and words and promises black/white skin is used also for clouds, countenance, garments, veil, etc. No. I am still learning. And there are other areas that others are far better than I am. This hardly makes me somehow more spiritual. I had one revelatory process. That certainly doesn’t put me above another. I’ve met people who have ideas that I disagree with who are still impressive and powerful, spiritually speaking. You’ll have to understand that this process had it’s culmination in the last week. It has been a very beautiful, spiritual event. It’s also been a more painful one as well. I think, because it’s new, both points are coming out more than they usually would in my writing. Funny enough, this forum had a number of items that kinda nudged this process along while I was lurking about some threads. So after I was all done and had pulled up every verse that I could find through my scriptures and the LDS.org (thank you search engines)… and had others opened to me… and talked with the Guy Upstairs (as I affectionately call Him)… and made darn sure this wasn’t me and my own desires getting in the way…this is in small part what I received. This isn’t my usual board, but I thought I’d take another peak and the first thread on top was this one. It’s exuberance that your reading, nothing more...well, sometimes playful sarcasm -> my east coast side often gets the best of me. That’s actually what I wanted a little. I keep expecting to find a flaw or 3 like I did with the others. But it’s like everything has finally just clicked. I don’t expect to convince you. I remember both you and another while lurking in a thread as believing quite adamantly about your positions. But I wanted a moment to better flesh out my thoughts in my head/writings and see what would come. So thank you for a little of that opportunity. I probably won’t have time to answer much more than this. I’m in Grad school currently and today was a strangely slower day. Those never last. Also I very rarely jump to a conclusion. I prefer to sit, stew, think, counter-think, and then type carefully. This was a relatively fast post (the scriptures you mentioned were ones that I’ve been looking and studying up on extensively) and I still was writing for an hour. Also I doubt we’ll agree on what has been disavowed. I doubt we’ll agree on this. That is not my expectation. I see it one way, you see it another. With luv, BD
  4. I'm talking about all of them. They have parallel language and accounts given. It's an obvious pattern in explanation and description between the 3. It's folly to look at one and no look into the other. That's the thing I'm standing by the plain text both the Book of Mormon, Bible, and PoGP....as well as principles found throughout all the standard works (For my study I read only the standard works, nothing else). As well as the Spirit and modern day revelation and the plain counsel. It's similar to why I (and most LDS) don't believe in a literal 7 day creation with 24 hr periods. Or why Eve isn't made literally from one of Adam's rib. Etc. One can believe these if they so want. But for me they've always had holes. I never believed, really, that the Lamanites skin turned dark or light like a light switch. It always felt wrong for me as a person, my understanding of God, and how God sees his children. Why would brown skin ever be seen as unappealing? Mine certainly isn't. If this is people-centric, why aren't NA's and indigenous populations turning white? If God was just keeping with their own racist ideas....why in the world would the Lord of truth and light perpetuate and feed off of such a terrible belief structure? Why, if their skin were so distinctive, did a lamanite spy for the nephites have to declare that he was a lamanite? Why did the lamanites become white twice? There were so many immediate problems to it I didn't know where to start. I believed more in maybe a natural mixing with indigenous populations and more of a gradual change that the people slowly learned not to see diffs anymore. But that also had problems and was more like a bandaid answer to the problem. And with your response, this also make little sense, considering the BoM is one of the most purpose driven books. It was compiled, shortened, and given specifically with us in mind. This distinction was important and had spiritual implications. It should be applicable to us today. Basically there are 4 major answers that have commonly been given (God literally changed their skin in short periods, it was a natural change over time, the people were racist in the BoM and God went with it or never felt the need to correct it, the BoM is racist). And they all fall flat to me. They all have the same crutch on injecting modern sensibilities about what is black and white into the Bible/BoM as well as selectively highlighting certain black/white motifs surrounding color while completely ignoring others (including 1 or 2 directly footnoted in the text) despite abject parallels in language and context. And the only explanation for any of these is some mix of things like: it is what it is, it was their time, it's a mystery, the mark/curse to 2 distinctive things (they're not), we must hold to traditional beliefs even when unpopular, etc. They hit brick walls in understanding and knowing God better and what we are striving to reach for. They are inert and I've never received solid revelation and opening of understanding through them like I have other plain and precious truths. You're welcome to your beliefs. But just like the belief of 7-day creationism I feel no need to defend or perpetuate them. What I've learned through earnest study, prayer, and careful reading gives me a far more congruent, beautiful, and intricate understanding of a powerful motif. It gives me the peace about these scriptures that I've never had, allows me to equally apply them to our day, and gives me a better understanding of God, His mercy, Truth, and His holy covenants. All I get from old beliefs that follow disavowed ideals is at best a block and mystery and at worst discomfort of something that appears racist. With luv, BD
  5. I think that's way too much extrapolation and finagling of a statement to make it work within the previous ideas about this topic. Especially when the context of the article makes it pretty clear that all racist ideas, past and present, are disavowed. To me, this idea was one of many to get the boot. Funny enough I just finished extensively studying it out for myself. As I mentioned above I see that mark/curse = dark skin as an interpretation (notably an understandable one) that is racist (note the diff of racist idea v. racist people. Very few people that i've met who've held this racist idea have been racists themselves). This study entail thoroughly reading the scriptures from the 3 main groups mentioned with a curse of blackness: Cain's, Ham's, and the Lamanites. I meant for it to be simple, but it turned into about 5 pages of notes on Word. So I'll just give you my synopsis of the parts pertaining to both Cain and Ham. I believe that the mark and curse can be used interchangeably. The mark, in effect was the decree for separation from the Lord, and subsequently his people. Cain had done all the heavy lifting to make this happen by rejecting God, having his countenance, fall, and finally killing Abel/choosing Satan's ways. In short this is a form of permanent excommunication of sorts. He was outside the covenant meaning he was no longer under the same responsibility/jurisdiction as the other seed of Adam. The Lord punished him for it and no one else was allowed to do the same. Whether the mark was physical or not, no one can really know and it's unnecessary, IMO for it to be so. There were, at best, thousands of people around (probably hundreds). The mark could be simple and a new command/mandate for separation from the covenants. Ham also is cursed in a similar fashion. The assumption of black skin as the curse is made through the Book of Moses description of them as black. This is, IMO, an incomplete reading. Genesis 9 also make the account, but footnoted, is a JST reference that describes the curse as a "veil of darkness" that "shall cover him and he shall be known among all men." What does this entail? Well, to me the entirety of the chapter, earlier, is discussing a reestablishment of the covenants of the Lord. It references or uses language that hails back to the creation account as well as, for us, the temple...including signs, tokens, and everlasting covenant. This veil of darkness is shutting out from partaking in the covenants of the Lord. Besides mark, skin, veil, and scales to denote this black/white motif, also cloud, garments, and countenance have been used in scriptures. Basically from what I studied "blackness/black/dark" in these accounts are better defined in the scriptures as being removed from God and His Covenants/Blessings. For us, even now, black often means a person with dark skin tone. The problem came when we converged the 2 definitions into one. This, to me, is what is disavowed. With luv, BD
  6. I've been a vegetarian for 12 years come March, including on my mission. I still eat eggs and dairy products with no plans on going vegan ever. But Next to that I don't have any sort of meat including fish and chicken. My views one being a vegetarian: there's nothing completely incompatible with being a vegetarian. There's nothing, scriptural, forcing me to eat meat either. Likewise there's nothing, scriptural, to impose my eating habits on another. And on my mission with self-assured elders around, a few would try to convince me otherwise. It never went very far, their arguments were holey, and they usually left frustrated. My perspective is that vegetarianism works for me. I eat a well rounded diet. I feel healthy. I rarely get sick and when I do get sick with a cold or something, it usually lasts 3-4 days tops. My meals are hardy, healthful, and nourishing. I'm am always grateful for them. I feel that it's my own way to have better stewardship and be comfortable with how my food was raised. In short I feel the blessings of the WoW and I'm grateful for it. But someone who eats meat isn't negated these blessings as well. There are ways to be conscientious, healthful eaters with or without meat. It's about balance and informed decisions. With luv, BD
  7. Overall, I quite enjoyed it....I don't remember a lot about it. But I remember feeling more love for my mom than I had in weeks prior. I remember receiving a strong knowledge that the Garments are truly of the Lord. I also remember being frightened out of my mind prior that I was doing things in the wrong order. And I also remember thinking at one point, if it wasn't for the spirit I'd be laughing at what (mostly old ward friends) were wearing. Some. The major principle are gospel oriented and I'm an art person. My mind's naturally geared toward symbolism and representative narrative Going again and again and again. I went as often as I could, especially when I knew my time was limited (about to go on a mish to a place without a temple in its boundaries). I wanted to learn more. I still do. I've been endowed now for 3 or 4 years, am a temple worker currently, and I'm still learning. I really enjoy that. I think that happens enough that you shouldn't feel embarassed. Though it didn't personally happen to me, plenty had warned me that it was a little weird and to not worry. I wasn't, but by their words I figure it's a pretty normal response. I don't think it's of the world to be weirded out. I think it's fairly common because it's a different mode of presentation and thought that we're simply not used to in our modern age. If it helps you be less weirded out, study it out. I started realizing on my mission that the temple is littered all over the scriptures....it has a great power to link all sort of truths that I didn't fully get or just seemed random prior. The temple's astounding.....if you dig. I started making a list where I could see either temple references or similar patterns in the scriptures. Here are some of those scriptures that might be helpful: - Ether 3 and 1 Nephi 11 both have patterns of receiving knowledge and instruction that is similar to how it's done in the temple. This helped me understand that this was a common form for the Lord to give instruction from on high. Other related scriptures in no particular order: D+C 130:11; rev 2:17 D+C 132: 19 D+C 110: 9-10 D+C 93:35 3 Ne 19:34; 2 Cor 12:4 Heb 6:19 1 cor 9:13 2 Ne 9:14 Moses 7:3,32 Rev 3:5 Rev 5:10, 20:6, 1:6 I'd also recommend just taking it slow....take one part of the temple ceremony or one basic gospel principle and see how it applies. The temple, to me, is constantly different...I'm constantly learning from it and about it and it's become a major part of my testimony and how I view myself. One of my favorite things right now about it is how affirming it is to the beauty and sacred nature of a body. No, even the Brother of Jared was frightened when he first saw the finger of God. Plenty in the scriptures who've received more didn't have the initial reaction of "Wooh that was amazing." You're normal. With luv, BD
  8. Bull!.....that's what I'd say... nicely and with a grin and my death stare that would let him know that arguing the point is beyond stupid. But if you want it nicer, I'd point out that Abraham didn't actually kill isaac. That all commands...all of them....should be within the bounds the Lord has set. The Lord is pretty dang clear about the eternal nature of marriage and adultery of any sort. But i wouldn't bother. Sometimes silence is better...like in Alma 30:29 - Now when the high priest and the achief judge saw the hardness of his heart, yea, when they saw that he would brevile even against God, they would not make any reply to his words. He's convinced himself into a rabbit hole. Let him trip on his own....it's bound to happen. In the meantime, do what's right for you and the kids. with luv, BD
  9. I'm no expert on just about anything you've mentioned. Never have had to forgive something like that. So take this as you will. From my experiences of learning forgiveness, 3 things help. - recognize the need and study by faith. For me I realized holding on to anger was doing me more hurt than it was actually worth. I was gaining literally nothing from it. I started studying the atonement a lot. Who did Christ die for?....this person that I'm struggling to forgive - Which leads to 2: see him as honestly as you can as God does. Go beyond just simply son of God and ask what does that actually mean. - Realize you can't do it by yourself. That hurt is healed by the One who loves us most. Forgiveness can be a beautiful means to learn the extent that God loves. I hope you find it. And it may take longer than you desire. But it'll be right whatever way the cards fall. Take care With luv, BD
  10. Well if it makes you feel better, you're not the only one. That's the major trend right now. Women are currently about equal to men who are going. I'm at BYU right now and all you here is about calls given and papers being fill....and much of the time it's women they're talking about or going. When I left on a mission I was in love with a man. I knew very well what it meant if I went. He was 30, single, LDS, good looking, nice....I assumed he'd probably be married and I had no right to expect otherwise. I knew I would miss him. I knew that I would love to have a future with him. But I knew more than any of that that I was supposed to go on a mission. It was a very good thing. It helped me and prepared me for a future marriage so much more. I half-joke that if I had stayed and married I probably would have gotten divorced. Basically if she truly knows she needs to go, then let her go. It was something that I personally will never forget and always honor about the man that I (still) love. It's right now complicated and uncertain but I respect and trust him so much in part because of how he treated the fact that I needed to go on a mission. He pulled away, he thought of me first, and had faith in the ways of God first before his. That is just something that I love and appreciate so much. There may be possibility for you and this woman, but it cannot come before God. With luv, BD
  11. I prefer the word envy....I know they're synonyms, but for some reason that's the word I see when I'm wanting something that another has. I don't know what your jealousy entails....mine currently entails marriage/engagements/children. Any of those will do. It's kinda new for me, i've never wanted them as badly as I do now. And I feel like I'm surrounded by it some days. I don't think I've completely overcome it. I still want kids badly. I would still prefer a steady relationships/permanent roommate . But I just remember that this is my path and I'm happy with it. I've had my challenges and blessings that I'm grateful for and that makes my life mine. They've made me a better person and there's no other way I could have gone about it. I've followed the Spirit and this feels right even when it's hard. I'm reminded that my path is mine and I cannot compare. What's right for another is good for them. Plus it comes with their own sets of challenges that I don't want right now. And their lives aren't inseparable from their challenges. They have blessings that I don't have this moment. They have challenges that I don't have in this moment. Theirs are theirs to help them to grow and become the person God wants them to be and fulfill their plan. Mine are mine to fulfill my own call on this earth. So when I envy I remember that in all reality I do not want another person's life. I want my own in its fullest. And if I can feel the spirit and am following the Lord then it is a fulfilling path indeed. With luv, Bd
  12. I was technically raised mormon. On my mom's side I'm 8th gen mormon...we go way back. But I would also say that my upbringing was probably not the typical mormon one. At least I'd say that when I was younger....ok I still would. I was raised by a single mom and then in a blended family when I was 9. My family is messy, entailing 4 people I consider parents (there are other people my siblings would consider parents that aren't my parents). 1 Born mormon, 2 converted mormon, and 1 not mormon. I have 10 half-siblings. There are 5-6 ehtnic/racial groups, in my immediate family. So I'm used to differences and from a young age was exposed to very different outlooks and circumstances. So, that's basically a long way of saying, no I'm not a convert from another faith....but I was kinda mostly sorta born into a mormon family...depending how you look at it. Why I'm mormon? Hmm. I think, for me, it's mostly about knowledge. I'm a curious person. Always have been. Always will be. I love to learn. And I feel that being LDS compliments this desire. I continue to learn and expand in my understanding about the Gospel. I love the simplicity that can expand to be complex. One of my first spiritual experiences was having a profound realization about heaven. I feel that my faith makes sense, that there's truly a balance between justice and mercy in eternity based on what is taught. I feel close to God from what I've learned and become through Him. There's practical reasons: it's a great faith to raise a family and I want a family one day. I feel comfortable here. I like my faith community. There's logical ones too: I believe the Book of Mormon is true. I believe in continuing revelation. I have strongly felt the veracity to a number of LDS-specific beliefs But mostly it's that I continue to learn and grow and become better through it. I served a mission, so I'll answer that to. I served in Philidelphia area and loved it. I owe so much to who I am today to serving. I've become a better, stronger, and healthier (emotionally/mentally) person. I can't say enough for how wonderful it was. It was also the most tiring and stretching time of my life. I was tired all the time....think of one the most tiring day you've had, where closing your eyes leaves you dreaming in seconds and there are physical symptoms (like migraines) to emphasize just how exhausted you are. And then stretch that out over 18 months. I was so tired that I got to the point where tired felt normal. And some experiences were necessarily painful. Especially the first half. I held on to a number of personal demons that I didn't even recognize until they were worked out....especially the 2 called sorrow and rage. It felt, in the moment, horrible, to experience these things that I'd buried because I didn't know what to do with them. But then I learned to be free from them and consistently learned the love of God for me in very personal and sacred ways. And in time, I found a complete and amazing peace with myself. I was so very free. Meanwhile I was serving and teaching others and learning so much from them. So basically: Phenomenally amazing. A learning experience to say the least. With luv, BD
  13. I really don't hold any sympathy for the company on this. Hobby Lobby isn't a religious group, it's a company that hires various people from various backgrounds who have the right to have their health care meet up to current standards. I think current standards could be better (something along the lines of what mnn said) but that does not negate their responsibility to pay their taxes. A company shouldn't have the right to decide which laws they will or will not follow. Period. With luv, BD
  14. Huh, that sounds like what I was reading about sexual aversion disorder. My only recommendation is shop around for a therapist who specializes in sexual issues as well. Depression sounds more like a co-occuring problem (as in it's not directly linked to the panic attacks with sexual contact) to the sexual issues. With luv, Bd
  15. Sounds cool to me. Go for it. I can't wait to get rid of my last name....of course I'm a girl so its more socially acceptable. Doesn't make a difference whether you keep it, hyphenate it, or take the woman's/man's name. It's just a difference in custom With luv, BD