One way I’ve taught my kids and other youth to actively *choose* what they’re doing vs. just riding the current of being born in the church and following their parent’s leadership is to consider how they end each prayer, talk, or testimony: I encourage them to observe (h/t Bednar’s “Quick to Observe”) who actually enunciates “in the name of Jesus Christ, amen” vs. how many of our supposedly active, believing brothers and sisters - even local leaders - treat it like a hastily sneezed vain repetition 99% of the time.
I then encourage those kids to decide for themselves who they are, and in whose name they want to be speaking. If you mean it, say it like you mean it. If you don’t mean it right now, that’s okay too — but maybe think about what you’re saying without meaning it and unpack that a bit.
Lastly, I also read Kimball’s “Living on the inside of the edge” book you quoted, and have long pondered the optics and assumptions baked into the “blue shirt, no tie” members.
I go back and forth on which is a more productive form of authentic discipleship in a church that you accurately note isn’t black and white: uniform #1: blue shirt no tie but surprise ward members with how seriously and joyfully you take “pure religion undefiled before God”, and treating others? Or should I don uniform #2: consistently wear a suit, white shirt and tie to better fit in with and emulate church priesthood leaders, but perhaps surprise some ward members with comments and lessons revealing how my theology may not be a predictable fit with the traditional LDS orthodox narrative and sound bites.
I’ve realized those two men are the same person. The only difference is what he wears and how it challenges people’s pre-conceived notions of what that wardrobe ostensibly means about the choices (there’s that word) he’s making. I shouldn’t worry about the optics much, but I do wonder about them.
Wonderfully organized and written, thank you.
One way I’ve taught my kids and other youth to actively *choose* what they’re doing vs. just riding the current of being born in the church and following their parent’s leadership is to consider how they end each prayer, talk, or testimony: I encourage them to observe (h/t Bednar’s “Quick to Observe”) who actually enunciates “in the name of Jesus Christ, amen” vs. how many of our supposedly active, believing brothers and sisters - even local leaders - treat it like a hastily sneezed vain repetition 99% of the time.
I then encourage those kids to decide for themselves who they are, and in whose name they want to be speaking. If you mean it, say it like you mean it. If you don’t mean it right now, that’s okay too — but maybe think about what you’re saying without meaning it and unpack that a bit.
Lastly, I also read Kimball’s “Living on the inside of the edge” book you quoted, and have long pondered the optics and assumptions baked into the “blue shirt, no tie” members.
I go back and forth on which is a more productive form of authentic discipleship in a church that you accurately note isn’t black and white: uniform #1: blue shirt no tie but surprise ward members with how seriously and joyfully you take “pure religion undefiled before God”, and treating others? Or should I don uniform #2: consistently wear a suit, white shirt and tie to better fit in with and emulate church priesthood leaders, but perhaps surprise some ward members with comments and lessons revealing how my theology may not be a predictable fit with the traditional LDS orthodox narrative and sound bites.
I’ve realized those two men are the same person. The only difference is what he wears and how it challenges people’s pre-conceived notions of what that wardrobe ostensibly means about the choices (there’s that word) he’s making. I shouldn’t worry about the optics much, but I do wonder about them.
Love this.