bluedreams

K, I have a little more time right now. These are just my random thoughts as I read your post. Take it as you will. In short: Yes, yes, and that’s up to you. But I honestly don’t think those are the most important questions to ask. The more important ones focus on yourself and how you view you and being gay. Right now, from what you’ve written, it sounds like you view it as an irreparable weakness that will lock you down from what you really want. But to me that is not what God promises us at all. He promises that if we’re humble and have faith, our weak things will become strong unto us (paraphrasing ether 12:27). Being gay doesn’t need to be a hindrance to your life but may be an important factor for you to better understand the Lord and to do His work here on earth. In short, it’s only a hindrance and harms you if you allow it to. To me, if you’d get married, it would work best when you are okay with who/where you are and have the strength to live what God expects of you. I don’t know your future. I don’t even know most of mine. I may never marry too. The idea is extremely unappealing as I highly desire intimacy and children. But I trust God first and understand that I would not trade out one experience or struggle, not one (not even the worst ones that I tried to beat down, get rid of, run from, and ended up in bed in tears about because it just never seemed to end...not even the ones that have left me desperate, isolated, and feeling irreparably damaged), because the Lord has made them some of my greatest strengths and continues to do so. Whatever your future holds, I believe it will be bright. Personally, I’d focus less on “will/should I ever get married” and more on “what does the Lord desire of me?” This will bring you the peace that you need. And I promise, it's always amazing. With luv, BD

Rameumptom, I'm just telling you what I've read and heard from various accounts of active members in the church that are gay or have SSA. Some say they have SSA, Some say they're gay, some use them interchangeably, a few prefer no labeling period. From what I've read from johansen's speech (not finished yet). He predominately states he has SSA, but there are points in it that he also ID's as gay. For example: "The gay rights movement no more represents me just because I am gay than the feminist movement represents my wife because she is female." And inferred here "This paints a very unrealistic picture. It makes it seem gay people would be happy if only the church expanded its doctrine to include same-sex relationships. It ignores those of us who love and depend on the Church’s teachings on same-sex relationships." In other words, I don't think he sees it as a primary identity, but he recognizes he has a part in it. What I got from it is that not all people with SSA or that are gay/bisexual act on it. Period. Similarly to how not all people who are straight will have sex. With luv, BD

Ramuemptom, That is not correct. Some people feel more comfortable with the label SSA some with Gay. Some use them interchangeably. Neither neccessetates actions or choice. Both infer attraction to the same sex. Apollyon, I really want to respond to you. Unfortunately, I'm about to run late to work. I'll have to throw in my 1.25 cents later (for whatever it's worth;)) With luv, BD

So this is now 11 pages old and I'm sure a number of things that I'm about to say will probably have been said before, but here's my 1.5 cents anyways. I'm a psych major and am hopeful to become a therapist focusing on sex or self worth issues. Sex is one of my pet topics. So take my opinion as you will. I don't feel the research points to what your daughter is stating. It shows a genetic predisposition, but does not negate that there may be environmental/persona/relationsal forces as well. To illustrated, research on twin studies shows that of those that are gay there is a 50% chance their identical twin is gay, 16-22% chance that there fraternal twin is gay, and a 6-11% chance that their adoptive sibling is also gay. The 50% and 20% is high and does show that there are some definite genetic connections to homosexuality. But it also shows that there is something more going on than just genetics. That adoptive siblings (ie. siblings with no genetic connection) also have an increased likelihood of being gay also states that there's more to it than just genetics. We're not necessarily programmed to be something by genetics. Personally I think there is a common misunderstanding of personal choice and agency. It is not equivelant to the idea or free will. We are not free to do or become anything we want. Our choice is defined between choosing between right and wrong. We all have various attributes that left to our natural selves are antithetical to the Gospel. It's our choice as to whether these things become a wedge or a tool to refine us and help us to grow in the Gospel. So in short, I don't think it matters how a person becomes gay (whether its genetic, environment, parenting, etc). It's what one decides to do about it that matters. I also don't the a majority of those who are gay will be able to choose to change their attraction as a whole as well. Don't negate that that can happen, but from what I've read about those who are active members and gay, that shouldn't be the overall goal. With luv, BD

Well, I'm not married. But i've been interested in a guy for about a year now, known him for 6. For some personal issues on his part we're not dating though it very much seems like it some days. We've not had sex and we're not going to (we have kissed and are physically affectionate). That may seem presumptuous, but that's on my list of non-negotiable standards, insomuch that I have personal rules of physical contact to make sure we don't get even close. Don't let someone pressure you into anything. If he truly respects you, he wouldn't pressure you to do so. I feel that's something that's absolutely necessary that there be mutual respect for each other and our covenants. With luv, BD

Because they're breastfeeding. Context is key. Honestly I don't know how people can find women with a baby breastfeeding as somehow sexually appealing or vain. Maybe if I were a man I'd get this better...who knows. And where modesty is described as prorpriety or properness, nothing seems more proper than feeding a child when they need sustenance. If your bearing your breasts in public to fit into a western standard of sexuality and to show yourself off....yeah, that's immodest. If your doing it to breastfeed a child, that's just simple sense. I personally don't have a problem if women cover up or not while feeding. Though in church all the women I've seen in the US have covered unless in the nursing room (and sometimes even then). So it seems like pretty much a non-issue within that context. No woman I've seen have ever done it to flaunt themselves. Just sayin'. With luv, BD

Pssh, I guess in a number of western cultures that's pretty normal. But some western ideals really need to be analyzed and removed. They're just not healthy. With luv, BD

Something that help me have more significant prayer (it's in the bible dictionary): As soon as we learn the true relationship in which we stand toward God (namely, God is our Father, and we are his children), then at once prayer becomes natural and instinctive on our part (Matt. 7:7–11). Many of the so-called difficulties about prayer arise from forgetting this relationship. Prayer is the act by which the will of the Father and the will of the child are brought into correspondence with each other. The object of prayer is not to change the will of God, but to secure for ourselves and for others blessings that God is already willing to grant, but that are made conditional on our asking for them. Blessings require some work or effort on our part before we can obtain them. Prayer is a form of work, and is an appointed means for obtaining the highest of all blessings. Personally, I don't think God answers our prayers and the direct questions immediately or in a language that we're generally used to. I think it entails a lot about learning how the Spirit works in our lives. When I do, I've felt that the Lord does really answer all/most of my sincere prayers. And I think the communication he uses is ingenious, it entails us learning to grow close to the Lord and seeking Him daily to better understand what we need while growing spiritually. Also I don't think he expects us to do all we do on our own, but rather all things with Him. With luv, BD

I don't even own nylons. The only time I've ever worn them consistently was on my mission and only during the winter (it was cold, any layer was a good layer while tracting). I hate wearing them. I don't think nylons defines whether one is modest or not. I figure if I can wear it without my g's showing I'm good. I've never noticed what other girls do too much. I know a number enjoy them. With luv, BD

Not going to lie. Some of the quotes I liked….and some I have some major discrepancies with. For instance: Benson states that “You [women] were not created to be the same as men. Your natural attributes, affections, and personalities are entirely different from a man’s. “ ….Alright this is fine. Men and women are different I can agree with that first part. I don’t know if I’d go so for to say entirely differ though. I grew up entirely with boys….they weren’t all that different in many respects. Besides if we were both made in God’s image, I would assume we cannot be that entirely distinct. But my real problem with he depiction of women’s traits is with this: “They consist of faithfulness, benevolence, kindness, and charity. They give you the personality of a woman. They also balance the more aggressive and competitive nature of a man.” The traits he described as giving a personality of a woman are Christ-like attributes who, last time I check was a man….and not only a man, but The Man. These traits are not to be imbued on ½ of God’s children, but the entirety. I don’t think it’s correct to feminize traits, God obviously expected His children to be universally endowed with. My other problem is this: “The business world is competitive and sometimes ruthless. We do not doubt that women have both the brainpower and skills—and in some instances superior abilities—to compete with men. But by competing they must, of necessity, become aggressive and competitive. Thus their godly attributes are diminished and they acquire a quality of sameness with man” First of all, who said the business world should be competitive and ruthless? I personally believe that much of the unhindered competition also fed much of the business world’s corruption and fuels some pretty poor social, business, and economic practices. I think most businesses could definitely use a “woman’s touch” per se to hopefully engender less volatile market practices. Second, I still have a problem of the means he describes men and women. Particularly with competitiveness. God described me as competitive…it doesn’t make me a man. In fact I remember once going through my PB looking for all the ways the Lord described me. It was, at the time, meant to help counter my own sense of inadequacy. But once or twice I thought of how many of these attributes would others describe as masculine while others would be considered feminine? It is always interesting when I hear people describe the inherent nature of a man and to realize that their expected weakness and strengths are the exact same ones that God has described in me over the year and inherent to my eternal nature and struggles in life. Last major problem: “I hope the time never comes when women will be brought down to the level with men, although they seem to be making these demands in meetings held . . . all over the world” ….I hate when we are placed on a pedestal or above the man in any way, shape, form or fashion. It leads to a lot of problems in my opinion. What I did like: “When a man understands how glorious a woman is, he treats her differently. When a woman understands that a man has the seeds of divinity within him, she honors him not only for who he is but for what he may become. An understanding of the divine nature allows each person to have respect for the other. The eternal view engenders a desire in men and women to learn from and share with each other.” I think this should not only apply in the home but, ideally, in every social sphere as well. I think one of the major signs of are fallen state is how little women’s voices are heard and utilized in needed spheres of influence. It would be a better place if both men and women were actively engaged in the public sphere as well as the private. Again this is idealic, but I think it would be foundational to Zion. Not that they should be one and the same, but that their different perspectives be equally represented. This, to me, would help develop stabler societies. And Pam, I don't feel that Hala meant to imply anything. And I think her concern is legitimate also. Though we should repect everybody's choices she's also right that it can be pretty taxing on a woman. Some women it would certainly be best not to have very large families. Some can (relatively) easily maintain it. I think her comment hinged on assuming there is an obligation to have very large families. It's not obligatory and for many families would be unwise to view it as such. The comment you mentioned, seems more defensive to those with large families. Coming from someone of mutliple generations of large families, I'm just fine with what she said. With luv, BD

As a vegetarian of 10 years and hearing just about every scripture in the book about this or that reason for eating meat, I can honestly say you are equally fine, doctrinally, in eating meat or not. It's a personal choice. Some people love the diet, some people don't. Personally, I enjoy it quite a bit. It's taught me a ton about nutrition and I'm very healthy. It works for me and it honestly did not take much work at all (a little self control and a willingness to try new foods were the biggies). Being Vegan would probably take a little more work. I've never met a vegetarian who uses it in a tone of superiority. It just is....and it cuts out a lot of eating confusion at the dinner table. There's no problem with labeling yourself. Labels can be quite useful. Prince of light, Minor correction....vegetarians do not do it mostly for issues with farm factories. There are diverse reasons people go veg: Health, environment, animal rights, social reasons and religion being among the big ones. With luv, BD

I've never heard of such a thing. I've only gone to do baptisms once since I was endowed, but there wasn't anything to it. I walked in with my unendowed cousin and enjoyed it. I don't think I'd have a problem at the provo temple as well. It's constantly busy everywhere so you can come in at about anytime and do work, finding a good number of people there. With luv, BD

No seminary, I'm not talking about the other degrees of glory. I'm talking solely of exhaltation, nothing more. I keep talking about feelings here because, on this topic, as a number have pointed out, it's largely speculation. There's not exactly a scripture out there that say "thou shalt know and love quantum mechanics as thou loveth art." So I'm talking from what I currently understand about God, since it'll be He who exhalts us in the end through conversion. He is currently converting my heart and mind as he desires it to be, which is the whole purpose of this life. So I'm using that as a "type and shadow" of sorts to what will come. In my mind, if there's differences between our eternal spirits before this life, there's differences here and now, and as I convert my uniqueness remains, then I'd assume there will still be differences when I return home. Again, NOT between degrees of Glory. I have not once talked about that or thought about that as I've written my posts. I don't know much of what exhaltation will entail. The scriptures tell our state and power (which to me does not equivilate to personality nor negate uniqueness) but not much beyond that. I also don't agree with your conclusion about how many will be exhalted. But I'll digress on that point. And the one about personality in general. I understand which angle your coming from, I just disagree with it. It's simply not what I've received or come to understand. With luv, BD

This is just so weird. That's all I keep thinking as I'm reading your posts, seminary. I want to come up with a more intrinsic post, but I thought I'd be honest. I ain't getting it. This is not what I receive when I read the scriptures at all. And the premise behind it seems unnececessary (as i mentioned, distinction/differences is not the source of pride). And honestly, none of the scriptures/quotes necessarily point to what you've assumed. I don't have a lot of time, so i'll keep this short. Just the other day I was reading two or three different passages. One was about Satan and his power over us. To me what has always stuck out that he gives an illusory freedom where we are truly not free nor ourselves. His plan from the get go was force and insistent sameness upon the God's children. The other was Moses when he sees God. I was pondering nothingness for awhile. What I found interesting was in the way that he came to understand his nothingness...it was through seen all the children of men. By seeing the vast extent of humanity in his world he came to understand our nothingness. Uniqueness in my mind isn't the problem, it's individualism to the extent of self-importance. It's losing sight of our place among God's children. When one comes to understand the infinite creative power of God then we come to understand our nothingness. His creativity is well illustrated in the diversity of God's children. Lastly is the scripture about intelligences, Though I don't claim to have the fullest understanding of it, to me it points to the fact that the Lord has no problem with distinctions among His children if he created them to differ from the beginning. And though I also have a problem with how the body is mentioned in these threads, taking the assumption that what the Lord forms is eternal then before we even had out corrupted state we had differences. Lastly I think it is a false equality that we must all be treated the same, receive the same, and become exactly the same. Equality to me entails having the same capability to achieve our potential in the Lord's plan. It entails we recognize our dependence on the Lord and each other. I don't feel jipped because I can't play the piano. I don't need to understand the intricacies of quantum mechanics to be fulfilled. My fullfillment comes from fulfilling the measure of my creation. We were different prior to coming, we are different here, I assume we'll be different when we return. Much will change, but much will also stay the same and distinction seems to be a constant no matter what state we're in. With luv, BD

Take it from someone who's been in a complicated relationship thing for a while now: Don't worry too much. Even if she doesn't love you, blurted it out of a sense of pressure, or she's trying to keep and an emotional distance for your 2 year hiatus there's not much you can do. So don't worry about it. If it works it works, if it doesn't it doesn't. It's life. With luv, BD

Lydie, Though I also pray in the way you mentioned (ie. talking about what I'm grateful for and blessings, etc) I also pray like I was just talking to Him like anybody else. I tell Him why this or that is bothering me, tell Him about my day, tell Him what I felt went well, etc. Once I had a prayer that was closer to yelling (I was very angry at Him at the moment, he calmed me down by pointing out the obvious). When I was younger, my favorite way to pray was to take a walk and talk. Sometimes my prayers are repetitious (just like my conversations can be with my friends), but they're usually heart felt. With luv, BD

I don't think there is as much distinction between now and heaven: From DC 130: 1 When the Savior shall appear we shall see him as he is. We shall see that he is a man like ourselves. 2 And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy. Though I expect much to be dramatically different, who we intrinsically are shouldn't. God adds to the true knowledge from what we receive now. What little knowledge I have received about conversion (or the process of becoming like Christ) has taught me that God wants me to be me. I have changed dramatically over the years. My power to access the power and glory of the Lord has increased. I have a better understanding of the atonement. But I'm still myself. Depends on what differences. I'd say the amount of sin and corruption (and associated behavior) in our life becomes smaller. I'd say that superflous differences such as race, sexual orientation, gender stratification, class division, etc become smaller. But as to what intrinsically is me I would not say shrinks. It becomes more definite if anything. The power of Christ in my life has made me more solidly myself. I think many will be as well. The worldly ones that I mentioned above. His work and glory is pretty straight forward and broad: To bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of humanity. That's it. I'm not seeing how this points out his personality. He'll still be different from me as I will still be different from you. This does not negate being one. To me it's much like the various analogies that speaks of being one body. Where we all are apart of one, but we all are distinctive. We all work to fulfill the glory of God but we all do it differently. The foot is apart of the body but is not the same as the head. They work/act differently but for the same purpose of glorifying the whole. No. When one group assumes their differences deem another better or more important, that is the beginning of pride and prejudice. Noting differneces does not equal pride. With luv, BD

I personally ate through seminary

I don't understand what you mean by "confined to just this life." And i was hoping we didn't disagree on it. I wasn't ever talking about Christ-like attributes that are to be universal. I was consistently talking about the personality of individuals that makes us us. Before, now, and after. So there would still be differences of one potential mate compared to another because there's still differences between individuals, IMHO.

No. The ones we were given from the beginning that makes us ourselves. The one mentioned in my patriarchal blessing that's supposed to be eternal. Personally, mine says I get to choose my spouse, so I'm banking on that being an eternal promise. That's (far) beyond what I meant. Personality is not equivalent to our aquisition of charity, hope, and faith. Just because I receive all that the Father has doesn't mean I become Him. Throughout my life and God's refinement of me, I've changed but who I am has not. I'm still recognizably me...the best me (minus anger, fear, resentment, etc). For example, before my mission I had this odd fear that somehow I would lose much of who I am by becoming a missionary. Though I drastically improved, who I intrinsically was remained the same. I still was sarcastic, blunt, artsy, eccentric, nurturing, etc. Ironically the missionaries that were often considered the most relatable didn't try to fit some ideal mould, but remained themselves...their best selves. Monson is not Hinckley, Holland is not Packer, Eyring is not Uchtdorf, Paul is not Peter, Alma is not Mormon, JS is not BY. They all differed but I believe all were/are in the right place spiritually. Having one's eye single to the glory of God and having personality and differnces is not the same thing. You're comparing apples and oranges. We all must learn charity. But a quiet person can learn it just as well as the chatterbox. With luv, BD

We're still supposed to have our distinct character/personalities. I'd assume that would mean some matches would be a lot better than others. We're equal...not the same. And I'd like to believe we still have choice. Arranged marriages are not my ideal.

SS, People experience things when they are dead (NDE's). I watched a documentary a couple months ago of a person who experienced things while in a coma. They're about 3 steps ahead on the unconcious factor. Why would it be so weird/false to experience something while dreaming? I've experienced a number of things that would seem like oxymorons if taken in the perameters you've set. To me, the split duality of the physical and spiritual is weird. Understandable, but unneccesary and weird. (It probably doesn't help that I've just finished my semester with personality theory, philosophy behind psychology, etc....messes with you quite a bit. All I see now is underlying philosophical assumptions ). To me, saying my brain dreams is about as logical as saying my legs walk. Yes, they're part of it, they're necessary for it, but I am the whole of these parts that give any meaning. I dream. I am my body and my spirit. I am soul. Seperating the two as distinctive and almost autonomous is, IMO, unnecessary and incorrect. Not only that, but then it makes experiences I've had inconceivable. But they're not. So I would state that there's probably something missing in your overall premise.And I understand that you want to clarify between a dream (ie. the night time REM cycle and its momentary organization that we make of it at wakefulness) and a vision. I'm simply stating it's unnecessary and not accurate. It makes sense, I'm sure, to you. But for one who's experienced all three (regulary dreams, visions while in the middle of sleep, and a vision while wide awake). It appears actually less clarifying and irrelevant to personal experience. If someone wants the most accurate description of what I experienced it must take into consideration that I was asleep and dreaming. Now off to enjoy my first day free from school! With luv, BD

Got mine when I was 14. It was exactly what I needed. It's become more to me over the years, but the timing was right IMHO. I hadn't had the slightest urge to get on beforehand and even kinda tuned out conversations about it cuz I really didn't want one. Then oned day someone mentioned it in passing in a lesson and it was just a quick realization of: oh, I need that! So I did. Can't really relate to the "nothin' special" thing. I've always loved mine. It was often my major source for hope when things were bad as a child. But I've known people who've felt the same as you on this (don't feel much for it). Overtime, their blessing became so much more to them as they grew spiritually. Usually they weren't ready and had gotten it for the wrong reasons (family pressure generally). And even though I've always loved mine, the meaning has changed over the years and become more powerful. So I'd just say give it time. With luv, BD

Have my discrepencies about satan's dominion thing....but onto the unconcious state, yes I think I can make that distinction. It's the same as learning to distinguish between the intense emotions of the waking hours and the Spirit. When a youth I saw (and did myself) cry about this or that when bearing testimony. Only problem is it wasn't really about the spirit but group experiences and personal emotions of some sort or another. The fact that I cried while bearing testimony and it wasn't the Spirit does not negate or confuse every experience I've had feeling the spirit while crying sense. I've learned the difference. Same applies to dreams. I've had intense dreams that have aroused various emotions in the past. They're not the same as these spiritual dreams. They do not have the hallmark signature of the Spirit of God. Just because some continue to confuse the two doesn't mean that we have to head back to the drawing board to make a better line in the sand. With luv, BD

Look. That's wonderful. Brain's an amazing organ. I'm aware. But forgive me if I take various scriptures and my personal experience over generalized sleep studies and MRI scans that are correlative in nature, have no difinitive means to prove causation, and have probably never measured someone having these types of dreams anyways. I'm saying it was a dream. I was asleep. I woke up from the powerful impressions to my spirit. I'm not worried about making "distinctions" between LSD, acid, peote, and dreams. Don't really need to. Scriptures and the WoW do a pretty good job of explaining the perameters. Haven't heard of a prophet in the standard works getting high to learn of God. And when lighter drugs are forbidden in the WoW while modern prophets have explicitly talked about abusing drugs and some discourage the use of just caffeine....well that's enough for me. There's really no need to distinguish, God's set some pretty high perameters, so it shouldn't be much of a worry. Call it whatever you like, but I don't see the need to worry about promoting hallucinations by stating I have had spiritual dreams. It is what it is. With luv, BD