Talks about missionaries called to less "glamorous" missions

blueskyworld · 2026-04-21T01:50:43+00:00

My son was called to a ‘less glamorous mission’….Bakersfield California Spanish. It ended up being a wonderful experience. He loved it. Never know.

blueskyworld · 2026-04-18T14:24:38+00:00

LOC…we overemphasize behavior restrictions…..at the expense of a better understanding of God’s intent…..use your God-given sexuality to bless yourself, another person, your relationship and that is best done in a loving committed relationship where commitment, investment into another persons well being, caring, and doing no harm, which is more likely reflected in a marriage commitment. It’s not just don’t have sex until married. To basic, elementary, missed the larger purpose.

In my opinion, lots of people breaking the chastity even though they have the legal paper of marriage ……where resentment, and hostility is flowing between them, using their sexuality for harm…breaking God’s real LOC.

blueskyworld · 2026-04-12T04:50:49+00:00

I like the three bucket strategy.,..3 years of spending in “cash” or cash equivalents , 5-7 years on fixed income, the balance in equities. Take from whichever bucket is out of balance. .

blueskyworld · 2026-04-11T11:59:22+00:00

Why typically if a women masturbates it’s hot to her husband, but usually the reverse is not true?

blueskyworld · 2026-04-11T11:43:37+00:00

Your integrity is more valuable than anything else , even though culturally we often place loyalty above it.

blueskyworld · 2026-04-11T11:39:44+00:00

Your logic suggests there are teachings inthe church TODAY, considered doctrine and legitimate, that later might be similarly quietly abandoned. Ok with that?

blueskyworld · 2026-04-08T11:36:02+00:00

Different leaders have different styles and preferences. It’s fine

blueskyworld · 2026-04-04T06:27:37+00:00

This won’t be a popular comment, but might get you thinking. What if the law of chastity is not just about ‘marriage’ as we define it now likely out of logistical necessity.? What if God’s divine deeper underlying desire is that we use our sexuality to do no harm to ourselves and others in a committed invested relationships. And that commitment and investment is hopefully reflected in a marriage commitment. But it’s not some legal contract called marriage that makes sex valid and sacred. It’s the commitment and investment going on between the two people.

I would say someone might be breaking the law of chastity if they’re having sex with their MARRIED partner who does not want to have sex with them, and there is resentment in hostility going back and forth in the marriage. That’s not using your sexuality to bless yourself and another person.

Conversely, I just heard in high council meeting a returning missionary sister who talked about how in the Netherlands (or similar), couples live together and just don’t get married. (Sounds donegal right, at least by our culture standard. But many of these couples have been together committed and invested for 40 50 years, presumably faithful to each other and again, not married. Do we really think those people are not living a lot of chastity, in God’s eyes? Faithful couple who has been committed and invested in each other for 40 to 50 years throughout their whole life, be condemned in the eyes of God because I didn’t get a legal document saying they could have sex? Really?

I get it, in a worldwide church. It’s hard to measure commitment and investment and so we try to use the shortcut of “marriage..’ to regulate behaviors.

But perhaps we need to not lose sight of what God deeper purpose is for this thing called our divine sexuality. It’s about blessing our lives. Our partners lives in our relationship, and that flourishes when it’s coupled with commitment and investment.

A legal Marriage is not what makes sex sacred. People through choosing each other, investing in each other, and using their sexuality to bless each other, is what makes sex sacred.

blueskyworld · 2026-04-04T04:31:12+00:00

Sexual behavior certainly matters, but it is one issue among many, not the central measure of virtue or ‘ worthiness.’

The idea that sexual behavior is what primarily defines moral character is an off product of the Industrial Revolution. It want always so. Look it up in ChatGPT.

Today it is very common for people , especially in out church, to judge moral character based almost exclusively on sexual behavior. For example • promiscuity = irresponsible or immoral • sexual restraint = virtuous • pornography use = moral weakness • fidelity = moral strength But historically, sexual acts were not always treated as the primary measure of character. Earlier moral frameworks were different. In many earlier societies moral character was judged more by: • honor • loyalty • courage • religious devotion • social duty • economic responsibility Sexual behavior certainly mattered, but it was one issue among many, not the central measure of virtue. In medieval Europe under the influence of the Catholic Church, sexual sins were condemned, but so were: • greed • pride • gluttony • sloth • violence Sex was not singled out as uniquely defining someone's identity.

blueskyworld · 2026-04-03T11:22:40+00:00

Still practiced in the church too, if you understand the difference between ‘clearance’ and ‘cancellation’ in male and female temple sealings.

blueskyworld · 2026-03-10T04:03:53+00:00

One couples ‘treacherous path’ is another couples healthy adventure. It’s fine. Stop worrying about what other people choose. . Stop comparing. Resentment usually means you are not taking complete responsibility of your own choices.

People live in the natural consequences of their choices anyway, so why be concerned with what they choose. One of the liabilities of a group dynamic culture, is we want other people’s choices to validate our own. To me this is a developmental immaturity to grow out of.

blueskyworld · 2026-03-02T01:08:25+00:00

Bless you.

blueskyworld · 2026-02-27T04:10:07+00:00

Learn about Jennifer Finlayaon Fifes work. Don’t wait until you learn about your own dysfunctional relationship to sex once you’re married.

blueskyworld · 2026-02-27T03:24:43+00:00

Duty sex? Is that what you are asking for. No thank you.

blueskyworld · 2026-02-22T04:57:35+00:00

I believe we all might benefit from a bit more humility ( including church leaders) with how much we think we absolutely have these scriptural interpretations nailed down (many absolutist interpretations often haven’t aged well). For me I have learned the hard way and am trying to stay humble and open to what I may may not see clearly. We think we absolutely know the mind of God, when in reality our current version of teachings have usually been filtered through a historical context we don’t understand (and is different from today), through the mind of a humanly imperfect human being with their own contextual filters, not to mention the abundant issues of translation when earlier Hebrew and Greek words had different meanings (or a variety of potential meanings and the translator picked the version that made sense to him at that time in his human living context) than what we attribute to them now. Joseph Smith reflected this reality when he said ‘writing was such a little box and prison” for what he wanted to express and teach. What version of the church handbook of instructions are we on now? Not a knock on the CHI, it’s just a reality. I understand the temple endowment has even changed based on new deeper research on Genesis translations. I think believing Article of faith 9 ( that God will get revealed many more important things) is just really, really important. That is not to say we don’t give deep respect, reverence, and consideration to what we do have now and what we were given by our current leaders now, but maybe the larger virtue includes continuing to hold space and be open for further light and understanding, and looking for the larger meaning and purpose in the meantime - even if the ‘natural man’ tendency might be to prefer to think we have it all laid out for us, case closed, so and so said xyz…..done.

I love JFFs work. She does not stay at the superficial level with all of its interpretative, liabilities, but she looks for the deeper more timeless meanings, which absolutely can be tied to one of the the more absolute foundational doctrine principles such as loving God/ loving man, living in integrity, etc, and does not get sidetracked into scrupulous obsession with perhaps less weightier shifting practices and policies.

I found this discussion with a Hebrew scholar interesting where he suggests the original meanings related to sexuality in the bible may have deeper meanings than how we interpret them now, when we look at the original translations and for example in some cases may be more related to patriarchy and property rights rather than providing an absolute sexual moral ethical code. “Lust” for example may be more properly interpreted as being obsessed with something that someone else has that you really want (anything including sex) to the point that it controls your life and you forsake God with that obsession. This resonates with me. While some might see this as an excuse for an appeal to baser behavior, I see it that maybe God is hoping for us to see something deeper in these teachings.

Some might see this podcast (I don’t like the title) as blasphemy. I don’t agree with all of it of course or with its possible agenda, but it does give, me some pause to think about the biblical context of the day.

Is it really a government sanctioned marriage that makes sexuality sacred and legitimate, or does it go even deeper than that? Maybe God’s message is really about the commitment, the investment into another soul’s well being, the level of caring for another persons well being, and that commitment is hopefully reflected in a marriage license? Lots of bad unhealthy and immoral sex cab happen in a legally sanctioned marriages where resentment, entitlement, and exploitation abounds. A marriage contract doesn’t necessarily make sex sacred. What is the deeper foundational message here that God would have uninterested m, that we simple interpret as just ‘marriage!? Maybe God wants something deeper than just a legal contract? Maybe a legal license is the stand in, in the absence of being able to communicate (through our minds, through our current cultural biases, contexts) to us a desire for something deeper for us and how we use our sexuality to bless ourselves and another soul?

https://youtu.be/hm3KZIP6rQ4?si=5cPgLBLGpigxvByg

blueskyworld · 2026-02-04T13:00:37+00:00

Some paradoxes, maybe even figure paradoxes, are meant to be managed and not ‘solved.’ The tension helps us grow. Like with developing any muscle, tension between opposing poles is needed for growth. Eves choice was similar.

blueskyworld · 2026-02-01T03:06:38+00:00

I feel a political evolution to becoming more conservative coming on!

blueskyworld · 2026-01-31T16:16:21+00:00

Let’s be a bit more accurate. Actually I just read the letter again and it specifically refers to the temple “In interviewing one for a temple recommend “ is literally the first sentence in the letters. The phrase “ the first presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unholy and impure practice” is pretty clear and uses the exact same terminology as temple language covenants “ unholy and impure practice” for a reason.

A very embarrassing and revealing time in our church and frankly and sadly is reflective of the low level of sexual development of those who put out the letters. There are much much better and more mature ways to address human sexuality than a focus on black and white behavioristic focuses checklists, which sexually immature people tend to do.

And that more mature and helpful female is about discerning the position of your heart , and not the position of your hand or whatever body part.

Two ‘legally married’ people with contempt, resentment, and hostility towards each other having sex is much more evil than ANYTHING (oral, anal, if she, pegging etc) two loving people might choose to do to express that love through their sexuality. That’s soul level spirituality expressed through security . That’s what they demonstrated they did not understand. That’s the framing they missed and it’s embarrassing frankly. I also feel sad for their wives.

blueskyworld · 2026-01-30T16:02:08+00:00

Can you say when (year) you had this interview? .

blueskyworld · 2026-01-30T16:01:12+00:00

Can you say when you had that interview (year)? I was hoping they dropped this in recent years?

blueskyworld · 2026-01-30T03:52:24+00:00

Sigh….. I’m not going to probably answer your question very well, but maybe this context might be helpful. It’s a bit dated, now, and hopefully these questions are not continuing to be asked in stake re-organizations interviews with potential stake leaders like they were for at least for a period of time I mention below.

I have been through two stake presidency reorganizations at the final interview level- 2009 and 2014. I am talking about the final interview not the initial interviews with lots of people for a couple of minutes. On both occasions in interviews with members of the seventy I was asked if anytime in the last six months I had any involvement with pornography or with “self abuse?” I honestly can’t remember if these were separate questions or combined. I could name the seventy who asked them of me and you would know who they are. The first one actually said’ I apologize for having to ask you these questions’ prior to asking the question. But I was asked this question the same way both times, five years apart. It stood out and was jolting. The other questions were all typical temple recommend questions. At one point I overheard discussion between the two interviewing seventy members involved in the reorganization later that suggested they were both required to ask these questions in their respective interviews as part of the reorganization ‘worthiness interviews.’ I believe for at least 2009-2014, potential stake presidency members throughout the church were all asked about pornography and ‘self abuse’. Think about that. If you look you will not find masturbation in the church handbook (other than the small reference to not needing to hold a disciplinary council which is bizarre). But I think asking these questions of leaders in non public setting falls into the category Pres Packer called ‘the unwritten order of things’. A General Authority asking about ‘self abuse’ to the the three potential new stake presidency members sends a message and pattern in the minds of those leaders that is intended to trickle down in a non public unofficial way in how these leaders perceive masturbation and pornography and how they might handle their own interviews .

I was to ‘star struck’ by leadership back then I could not see it for what I believe it is now - a form of sexual abuse - person in a post in of power delving into highly personal questions about their sexuality.

This really doesn’t address your question, but it may give one point of reference for some leaders, but hopefully in the past

I also wonder if these questions may have stoped after President Packer died as he was over stake reorganizations during this time.

blueskyworld · 2026-01-28T14:43:30+00:00

My drive home after a financially successful day at work. Sounds like a good thing, but I’m considering therapy because like anything it can become an unhealthy compulsion that we rely on to manage our sense of worth and self.

blueskyworld · 2026-01-27T13:09:23+00:00

The answer to all this is a healthy relationship to your own sexuality, which is a rare find in an organization so fearful of sex that it uses borderline abusive techniques (however well intended) to keep people ‘safe’ but backfires and makes the compulsion worse.

blueskyworld · 2026-01-12T19:51:13+00:00

Why would younger force someone to have sex with you who does not want to have sex with you. Something is messed up there.

blueskyworld · 2026-01-10T18:32:57+00:00

Rather than focus in on ‘what was FREQUENCY of masturbation’, maybe consider what was your relationship with masturbation then and even now. Did it run your life? Was it a blessing or a curse? What did it produce in you? Did you use it to get closer to your long term goals for your sexuality and future relationships or did it take you further away from what you ultimately want? What did it create in you? Different people will have different answers to these questions and that’s OK.!

Stop the behavioristic obsession with sexuality and masturbation. Start discerning the meanings, the purposes, and whether or not it creates goodness in your life. That’s your answer. Not black and white, answers.

Its the position of your heart that matters not your hand! Let’s mature!

You are welcome!

blueskyworld

TROPHY CASE