- RLD on Seeing Transparently in Church: Participation and Meaning in Church (Or What Did Church Lead You to Think About) Yesterday, 6/21?: “I’m dubious we can ever achieve a transparent eye, but we can be aware of how our situation affects our perspective and push back against those biases, or make a conscious effort to see things from someone else’s point of view. Sometimes how we frame things makes a big difference, as our Sunday School teacher pointed out… In his challenge, Goliath describes the Israelites as “the servants of Saul” but David describes them as “the armies of the living God.” David’s framing invites him to draw upon the Lord’s power for help. It’s only in that framing that it makes sense to send a young man armed with courage and faith against a veteran warrior. That got me thinking about how I can reframe the struggles I’m dealing with from an eternal perspective, giving the Lord a part to play. But I should be aware that could lead to me being prompted to do things that don’t make sense from a worldly perspective.” Jun 24, 09:31
- on The Chinese Communist Party, The Dalai Lama, The Church, and Live-and-Let-Live: “A writer a decade or more back described the Dalia Lama meeting with a gathering of Tibetans in the West. The writer said that in that setting their leader acts like one in authority and sterner than he is with Westerners. Latter-day Saints will remember when Gordon Hickley would be affable and witty on TV with Mike Wallace or Larry King and in General Priesthood Meeting would admonish men to straighten up and do their duty.” Jun 24, 07:32
- on The Chinese Communist Party, The Dalai Lama, The Church, and Live-and-Let-Live: “Kundun is an amazing movie on the Dalai Lama I watched at international Conema at BYU and have since rewatched. Great director, great score, and a beautiful treatment of religious tradition.” Jun 24, 07:05
- on Seeing Transparently in Church: Participation and Meaning in Church (Or What Did Church Lead You to Think About) Yesterday, 6/21?: “Last Lemming, the words that the non-member said was “Watching families grow”. He then followed it up with some specific references of kids who recently graduated high school, or were back from college for the summer.” Jun 23, 08:49
- on Unsettling Settler Mormon Lifeways: A Review of Elise Boxer’s Mormon Settler Colonialism by Jason Palmer: “Great comments, everybody. I wonder, why the kneejerk defensiveness? Why the jump to White genocide as one of a tiny handful of solutions? Why jump to solutions at all? Giving Earth their people back has nothing to do with who your individual ancestors are. It implies no great migration back to a place you imagine as “Europe” or back to the dells of the mythical Caucasus Mountains. It has to do with what you are capable of imagining as a future and what type of future you’d like to make possible. What future would you like to join? Would you like to have a sustainable relationship in community with other beings? Think beyond biology and genealogy. Do you really think the US has a moral justification for its governance of this land? Do you really think that in the inevitable absence of the US (all empires fall), it will somehow be people like Orsonite who are tasked with designing a replacement? Sute does. Thank you, Sute for not being afraid to state your actual beliefs. You believe that the US government is a good thing because it seeks to replace Indigenous relations, which are bad things. That at least gives me a genuine stance that I can argue against. However, this piece was not meant to change minds, it was simply meant to create some buzz around Boxer’s book. The people against whom I can’t debate are those who pretend that in their heart of hearts they don’t actually think with Sute that settler lifeways, though sometimes misguided, are ultimately for the greater good. Where do you start with people who think their attachment to the settler state is logical when in actuality, it is purely emotional? Where do you start with people who think they are antiracists but voted for Biden? I don’t know, so I don’t start. Again, this was a book review. These ideas are not up for debate, and I hope they change nobody’s mind. As for Thor, thanks for the solid critique. Do you think it is the vacuousness of my prose or the radicalness of my ideas that make my writing unpublishable in more scholarly venues? I tried to publish this in 3 scholarly journals, by the way. Rejected. I’d like to think that I’m too edgy to publish, which puts the blame for my failure on the coloniality of publishers. However, I have an inner Thor always telling me (in even more ad hominem ways) that the real reason for my rejection from academia is the sheer suckiness of my writing. Or, were you just attacking my writing style because its content threatened your emotional attachment to the settler state? I know, I know. I shouldn’t flatter myself. But seriously, everybody, what is it about ending the settler state that you find so threatening?” Jun 23, 07:29
- on Seeing Transparently in Church: Participation and Meaning in Church (Or What Did Church Lead You to Think About) Yesterday, 6/21?: “jader3rd, To be clear, are you interpreting that as a reference to crying babies or to something else that is flying right over my head?” Jun 23, 06:52
- on Seeing Transparently in Church: Participation and Meaning in Church (Or What Did Church Lead You to Think About) Yesterday, 6/21?: “jader3rd, that’s a fascinating story. If you haven’t already, I think it’s worth mentioning it to the Bishop. My initial reaction is, of course, that we need to find sacredness ourselves, by how we see and react to the meeting. But, of course, there are assumptions that are generally made in a culture, and I suspect that the group is judging sacrament meeting based on those assumptions. Its possible to meet those assumptions, of course — its just easier for us individually to change how we see and react and find sacredness that way, because it doesn’t require us to run the meeting or change other’s behavior. Regardless, that’s disappointing. And all too common.” Jun 22, 21:11
- on Seeing Transparently in Church: Participation and Meaning in Church (Or What Did Church Lead You to Think About) Yesterday, 6/21?: “In Elders Quorum the Elders Quorum President made a passionate speech about the sacredness of Sacrament Meeting. He then asked the quorum how they feel sacredness in Sacrament Meeting. After an pause where no one raised their hand a non-member raised his hand and said that he doesn’t feel any sacredness during Sacrament Meeting, but he very much enjoys seeing the ward families grow. It does make me ponder about feeling sacredness.” Jun 22, 19:15
- on Seeing Transparently in Church: Participation and Meaning in Church (Or What Did Church Lead You to Think About) Yesterday, 6/21?: “Here’s a few of my thoughts in reaction to what I experienced in Church recently: We recently had talks from a couple who were moving out of our ward. I realized that these “farewell talks” are a kind of genre — the speaker says similar things in the talk, like how they have been involved in the congregation, how much they will miss the members of the congregation, etc., all while trying to give a gospel message that some will find uplifting. I’m wondering what other elements are generally found in these talks, and what the speaker should do to make it work. I’m thinking its a little tricky. One of the speakers moving away used Elder Uchtdorf’s “Lift Where You Stand” metaphor when talking about moving between wards. I must admit that I had never thought of it being used in that way. But I suppose that where you stand can and does change over time. I guess that also means that your ability to lift changes over time and depending on where you are — in some locations it may be harder for us to lift much, while in other situations we can contribute more. In class, a speaker talked about the paradoxes of suffering. Suffering alone isn’t worthwhile. It’s suffering plus meaning that makes the suffering both durable and worth it. I think this is similar to an opposite of suffering —- winning. Winning alone is hollow. It’s love that gives winning value. Winning without love is losing. ” Jun 21, 10:54
- on More Than Mercy: Robert Alter on the Covenantal Weight of Hesed: “Hesed is very different from charity–that’s kind of the point of the interview. You can have charity for me without my participation or even my consent. But for you to be faithful to a pact with me, we have to have made a pact. That requires something of me as well as you. God loves all his children unconditionally (charity) whether they like it or not. But even God cannot be faithful to a pact (hesed) we are unwilling to make. That said, I very much doubt that the covenants of the restored gospel are the only pacts God is faithful to.” Jun 20, 23:53
