[squarepeg]

nibbler wrote:

There are many quotes from church leaders that indicate that scientific advancement is just another way god reveals truth.

But they’re likely talking about the hard sciences, not the social sciences. Soft sciences are where things get real fuzzy because we’re dealing with hypothetical constructs like “happiness” and we’re assuming that our measure of happiness is actually measuring true “happiness.” But then, how do we define happiness in the first place? Can humans even agree upon a definition? I read something recently explaining that the fact that Scandinavia looks like the happiest part of the world in research may be because they interpret the questions in the survey differently from other cultures, and because of their metacognition surrounding the social construct of happiness.

We also may want to take a more longitudinal perspective when it comes to having children. If you have children, maybe you’re less happy than someone who doesn’t at age 38 or 45, but what if they perform the same survey on people who are within 5-10 years of the end of life? These people have family who are comparatively young whom they may live after becoming a widow/widower, or family who comes to visit them. They have grandkids, thus potentially reaping that initial increase in happiness that parents of young kids experience, repeatedly with each additional grandkid. So possibly, on average, we recoup some of the lost happiness from middle adulthood in later adulthood and come out even? Also, possibly not. But either way, until someone does that research, we don’t know. I feel like Church-inspired “truth” and “truth” from science are about equal in terms of actual validity. Science makes truth claims, forgetting that the entire discipline is based on a set of underlying assumptions that cannot be verified (just like religion), only to have those claims smashed to smithereens by subsequent science.

It would be nice if the lesson instructor would say, “Oh, yeah, so I guess the lesson manual and the social science research are somewhat contradictory.” I might say that, but I’m guessing a lot of people wouldn’t. They wouldn’t know what to say and would feel obligated to defend the church because they’re at church. Rough, regardless. I’m with you, science that contradicts the manual should not be taboo. Science that compliments the CES material is fine, of course, haha.

[squarepeg]

DarkJedi wrote:

[…]I think one could honestly and authentically answer the TR question appropriately if worn in whatever way the individual “feels good” about or makes sense of. It is very much like tithing (and some other things) in that respect. A full tithing to you may be different than a full tithing to me, but as long as each of us feels good with God it doesn’t matter what some man is asking about.

It’s kind of like tithing, yes, but at a certain point, with tithing, you’re either paying 10% or you’re not paying 10%, you know? So if you’re wearing the garment neither day nor night, it seems to me like quite a stretch to say “yes” in the TR interview, even though the interview script says to wear it “as guided by the Spirit.” I was thinking about the article hawkgrrl linked to that makes so clear that problems with garments are relatively common, especially for women, and how unlikely most people are to discuss these challenges with Priesthood leadership. It got me thinking… Even though I miss being able to enter the temple, if I answer “yes” in a TR interview (justifying it with my belief that I’m ok with God), when I know perfectly well that that answer gives the Priesthood leader the impression that I wear the garment during at least some nights and days, I have lost an opportunity to raise awareness of something of potential importance that perhaps should be discussed. My husband pointed this out to me. If people never expressed to Priesthood leadership their concerns and problems with Church policies, some of the changes that we’ve seen happen may not have happened. For example, if nobody openly expressed a concern that maybe black men should hold the Priesthood, would President Kimball have prayed to know if it was time to revoke that ban? If Emma Smith hadn’t come out and told Joseph how problematic it was for her to clean up all the tobacco mess from the floor after his meetings, would we have the Word of Wisdom? If all of us who experience significant distress in trying to wear the garment told our Priesthood leaders about it, instead of answering “Yes”…what might happen? Maybe eventually, some complaints would work their way upwards until a decision is made to remove the “night and day” bit while leaving behind the “by the Spirit” bit, or to give local leaders permission to grant exceptions in certain cases (emotional issues, sensory processing issues, menstruation, yeast infections, etc…)

Of course, I completely understand that some people can’t have the discussion with Priesthood leadership and risk losing their temple recommend. Many people need to privately use a very liberal interpretation of the “rule” or guideline, in order to maintain peace with their TBM spouse, or in order to keep attending the temple for their own spiritual well-being (or for other reasons I’m not thinking of). But I am in a good position to have this discussion with my bishop, and maybe let him know about some of the other issues that I know others have, also. First, he is very understanding and empathetic. Second, although I miss the temple, I am not suffering to a significant degree by not entering right now. Third, my husband is inactive and has no testimony, so our relationship is in no way threatened by my temple worthiness status.

Old Timer wrote:

squarepeg, I not only attend the temple, I am a weekly temple worker – and I am a coordinator at least once a month. I have no problem getting a recommend with how I view the garment. Personally, I wear it the traditional way – except for many nights. Not wearing it at night is a central part of my “marital life” – and it doesn’t violate anything about the temple or the covenants I have made.

Curt, that’s awesome. It seems like you’re wearing it most of the time, and during at least some nights, so that seems enough to be able to answer “Yes” without guilt.

Thank you for that thread link. I can sure relate to the original poster who prayed about it and was surprised that it seemed God was more okay with her not wearing the garment than she was!! I agonized about it for such a long time, and when I finally poured out the anguish in prayer, the answer was, “Please don’t worry about it right now.” I thought, “Seriously? That’s it? Just don’t worry? Umm…ok…”

From that other thread, I really appreciate this that you said, Ray: “I’m at peace, specifically because I’ve discovered me – and I’ve found a way to be that “I am” among the group I want to call my own “our us”. Sure, some of that peace is due to the fact that I don’t preach my heterodoxy fully when “I am” is with “our us” – but that’s just because I don’t want to rock anyone else’s world by making mine collide with theirs. We can orbit around each other in close enough proximity to dance a good dance without me insisting on invading their spaces and causing a Big Bang, so to speak.”

Western culture emphasizes the individual good, and Eastern culture often emphasizes the collective good, but we really have to consider both, and sometimes that may mean refraining from expression of our individual beliefs in the group setting when the group may be better off ignorant of our unorthodoxy. But I wonder if some people would feel betrayed if they found out how far “out there” I am. It is all very difficult for me. It feels like walking a fine line with nothing but despair if you step off onto either side. And I feel like I can tell the difference between my opinions that are just individual interpretation or speculation, and my opinions that have come through the Holy Ghost…and I sometimes feel morally obligated to share the latter in spite of my fear. But I’m handling my relationship with the church differently this time. In a previous ward, I knew we would only be there for one year, so I decided to just jump in full throttle and play by all the rules (“one last time” I thought, lol) and pretend that I was true blue, and just see if that was going to be sustainable. It turned out NOT to be sustainable, much like garments. It wrecked me. That’s when we went totally inactive.

I also love hawkgrrl’s quote from the other thread: “I don’t object that the garment is sacred and should be treated with respect, but so are we.” I need to remember this when weighing pros and cons with a commandment.

Man, even reading these garment threads (no pun intended) is making me feel them again. But it’s still so helpful to engage with you all and hear your thoughts. Thank you.

[squarepeg]

Thanks so much for all the support and kind words about this.

I love how everyone’s responses here indicate that we span the whole entire spectrum of garment-wearing (or not) that works for people, including creative work-arounds and hacks, and how nobody feels a need to condemn or criticize what the others are choosing or have chosen. This group is beautiful.

Reuben wrote:

My philosophical side notes that the more Pharisaical an organization’s rules are, and the sharper the boundaries it establishes, the more it marginalizes and pushes out those who can’t conform.

My religious side, when justifying not wearing garments at night, has in mind this scripture:

Quote:

And again, I say unto the poor, ye who have not and yet have sufficient, that ye remain from day to day; I mean all you who deny the beggar, because ye have not; I would that ye say in your hearts that: I give not because I have not, but if I had I would give.

At night, because of RLS, I have not: I can’t make this sacrifice. You, squarepeg, because of SPD, also can’t make this sacrifice. I count wanting to make it to be just as good as making it.

Reuben, I’m sorry you deal with a bunch of sensory stuff, too. It sounds like you and I experience just slightly different variations of the same weirdness/disorder. I think you deserve a lot of credit for keeping on wearing them and finding ways to make the best of it, for the sake of family relationships.

I absolutely agree that the more Pharisaical an organization’s rules are, the more it will marginalize people. In an organization where the Spirit of the Law reigns supreme, there is a place for pretty much anyone.

That’s an awesome insight with the quoted scripture. We can’t do what we can’t do, but our intentions count. With some issues, like the garments issue, it’s hard because we actually can do it just as we’re told to – it’s just that if/when we do it as instructed it can impair our ability to keep other commandments, like loving our neighbor or listening for promptings of how to serve, because we’re too distracted and stressed in our perfect obedience of the garments commandment. It’s complicated. But I agree, when obedience to one commandment is a significant disruption to our ability to function normally, we truly “have not”.

The two waistbands! I would have to roll the garment waistband down 4 times to get it to be in line with my pants waistline. It would never stay rolled, of course. Your description of the grippiness problem with the cotton ones reminds me that when my husband wore them he would get tons of ingrown hairs. I didn’t realize until reading your experience that the disappearance of all the ingrown hairs corresponds to when he stopped wearing his garments. If he ever decides to wear them again I’ll have him try “corban”.

Ann wrote:

Sight is a sense, too. And the sight of them 24/7/365 was too much. I do wear them, but much less than before. My husband, thank heaven, is fine with it, and I feel TONS happier and feminine without changing a stitch of my outer wardrobe.

Ann, I’m so glad you found a good solution. Another principle or habit of which I no longer have a testimony is wearing “Sunday clothes” on Sundays (or to other church functions), but I still do it because I recognize that for others the visual experience at church is enhanced if everyone else is dressed in a certain way, and aesthetics can help some people feel the Spirit. Kind of like how I can focus more easily in a room devoid of clutter. We like to say appearance doesn’t matter…but on a certain level it can absolutely matter.

Always Thinking wrote:

[…](if I could, I would NEVER wear bras).

[…]buy something that is modest only to have my garments show anyways.

I don’t have SPD but I’m what’s called a Highly Sensitive Person so certain textures and sounds really get at me and piss me off, but not to the same extent as you where it’s torturous.

Me, too, re bras! I’ve also had a hard time, often, finding clothes that don’t show garments. After a while I gave up and just started wearing all unisex t-shirts on weekdays, and button-down collared shirts with a skirt on Sunday, because it seemed that anything else would show my garments. And I wear loose-fitting jeans because, again with the sensory issues, I can’t stand them “touching” me everywhere. And usually I don’t wear makeup because I don’t like how it feels, either. I’m sure some people who didn’t know me assumed I was lesbian because I looked very androgynous. (Now I have a few shirts that are actually meant for women.) Interesting that you are an HSP. My mom wanted me to read that book because she feels she is one, also, and she thinks I am, but she’s probably right and I don’t want to find out I have any other quirky traits, haha. I’m weird enough, already. On the flip side, it is nice, in a way, to learn there is a label (other than “freak” or “weirdo”) for how your experience differs from that of the majority, isn’t it? It makes me think of all the people out there who are isolated due to being different in some way because there isn’t a label for their experiences…yet.

Curt, thank you for the links to the other threads discussing garments. I am still reading through them. So many valuable insights.

SilentDawning wrote:

I wear the garments to church and in places where church people might start assessing my compliance (looking for the eternal smile under my white shirt) (sound strange, but they do it to see if you are in compliance). But as a rule, I don’t wear them unless there is some religious purpose. And I am much happier as a result. And happiness is the object and design of our existence, isn’t it

I don’t get how wearing clothing that irritates you constantly, throughout your whole life can be part of the “the fulfilling life”.

SilentDawning, thank you. It really bothers me that we can often tell whether another person is wearing garments. The whole idea, I thought, was for it to be a private reminder of covenants between the individual and the Lord. The whole point, I thought, to having them worn underneath clothing, was to make the matter a private one. So, now, for fear that others will think we’re not taking our covenants seriously, we have to be sneaky, wearing them when we’re around those who might judge, and not wearing them when there is no risk of judgment. That is upsetting. I wish we could get the symbols tattooed onto us instead!

Minyan Man wrote:

I agree completely. Didn’t JS when he went to the Carthage jail, not wear his garments? Yet we don’t condemn him for that.

When I became active again & went through the TR process, I made the point of saying to the Bishop, I don’t wear my garments at times like, going to the Doctor or the gym.

He said he didn’t either. The message I got is consider your situation, consider your own circumstance and make your own choice.

However, I wouldn’t get up in a Fast Meeting & say that either. (Come to think of it, I don’t get up in the Fast meeting.)

Interesting about Joseph in Carthage Jail. Maybe he had a good excuse? (I don’t get up in Fast meeting, either.) I’d feel like I could answer “Yes” to the TR interview question if I were wearing them MOST of the time. But I can’t even do that. If you take them off for the doctor and the gym, you’re still wearing them 90+% of the time; I’d bet it’s a rare bishop who would bat an eye at that.

hawkgrrrl wrote:

You’ll probably enjoy this post I did: https://bycommonconsent.com/2013/05/13/female-garments-the-underwear-business/

Thanks for the article, hawkgrrrl. After reading that I realize I was wrong to roll down the waistband the way I used to do (even though the top was tucked into the bottom. Interesting and significant that some of those problems were experienced by 75% of the people polled. I can sure relate to many of those problems. What a nightmare. Clearly, many others are experiencing significant problems that go beyond mere inconvenience.

Old Timer wrote:

Just like the Sabbath, the garment was made for us; we weren’t made for the garment.

Wear it in whatever way and whenever makes sense to you and brings you closer to God. If that is always, fine; if it is usually, fine; if it is occasionally, fine; if it is never, fine.

I agree fully. Having this perspective doesn’t let you into the temple if you occasionally or never wear them, though, which is the part that bums me out. I guess I just need to mentally make my temple the same as my garments: I need to realize that all kinds of different places can be “temples” to me, just like a variety of material objects can be “garments” and remind me of covenants with God.

[squarepeg]

Old Timer wrote:

My only additional comment is that the prayer asks for ALL to be blessed for what they are willing to do – NOT what they are able to do. This means the priest asks that God’s grace truly cover the difference between our hopes and our actual abilities – pointing to the belief that we really are blessed for the desires of our hearts, not for the works of our hands, so to speak.

That’s a really good point, Curt, I appreciate that. It’s more on the “grace” side of things than the “works” side, which ok by me. I think “works” happen naturally when one’s “grace” side is well tended.

[squarepeg]

Ann wrote:

There seems to be this fear – we can’t have women and men equal before God in the temple, because who knows what “they’d do” then! That’s right, who knows. Why do fearful people assume it’ll be bad? Maybe all these baby steps are nothing compared to the positive energy that would flow in this church if we dignified women in the temple.

Yes! Some things are worth the risk!

I like the baby leash analogy.

It seems the church should have no reason to fear what could happen if we grant full equality to women, because if it goes badly, the church can just revoke it. That’s the lovely thing about Mormonism: we try weird stuff! If it works, we keep it! If it fails, we trash it! The Word of Wisdom seems to work so we keep it. The garments tying around wrists and ankles wasn’t working so we changed it. Having auxiliaries meet on Sunday rather than on weekdays is working so we keep it. Polygamy became a hindrance to attaining our broader goals so we scrapped it. Historically we’re not risk-averse. I wonder why the fear, now. I feel like fear also drives a lot of the Pharisaical rules we give the youth about sleeve length, dating behavior, etc., rather than teaching them correct principles and letting them govern themselves, with some individualized guidance. But that’s a topic for another day.

[squarepeg]

Joni wrote:

I’ve mentioned before that I’ve had personal revelation, in the celestial room of the temple, that God doesn’t love me. (It’s okay that you don’t believe me. My husband doesn’t believe me, either. But I know what I experienced and I can’t deny it.)

I find that I simply can’t pray anymore. I have nothing more to say to Him. It feels a lot like prayer is how we tell God what He should take away from us next. (For the last several years, my children’s prayers have also included the phrase ‘please bless that our house won’t catch fire.’ I fully expect that God will burn our house down any day now, just to teach me a lesson.)

This also puts all of the Church’s many many demands into perspective. They don’t come out and say it, but it’s at least IMPLIED that if you pay tithing/wear ugly underwear/serve in callings whether you like it or not/sit through boring meeting after boring , God will at least like you better than if you DON’T do those things. But I’ve found that there is nothing I can do to earn the least bit of favor in His eyes, so what the heck is my motivation for doing all these things?

I am so sorry you’re dealing with this. How insanely stressful. I can absolutely relate to the feeling of certainty about an experience that seems to contradict what the Gospel teaches, and having people disbelieve and discredit it. I believe you that you did have the revelation you say you had, and I think you’re doing the right thing by being honest and not denying your experience.

I think you’re perfectly justified in not praying for as long as you want or need. When you say it feels like prayer is how you tell God what He should take away from us next, it reminds me of the “Law of Attraction” that I have heard some people talk about. Have you heard of this? There was a movie called “The Secret.” It is kind of like a religion. I have no idea if there’s any legitimacy to it, but I kind of tend to give everything the benefit of the doubt unless I know for sure it’s garbage. One of the aspects of it is that you presumably shouldn’t state the things you want in the negative, like, “Bless our house not to burn down,” or “Bless my husband not to lose his job.” Instead you should say, “Bless our house to be strong and safe,” and, “Bless my husband’s employment status to remain stable,” or something along those lines. Again, I’m just throwing it out there as something to potentially try if you ever feel like praying again. I’m not saying you’ve been praying wrong all this time, or that if you’d prayed differently that all the horrible stuff wouldn’t happen. I have NO IDEA if there’s anything to that Law of Attraction stuff.

Significant medical issues were the thing that threw me into a faith crisis, and I felt the same as you’re feeling about commitments the Church asks us to make: garments, tithing, callings. It was very much like, “Why am I doing all of this, devoting energy I don’t have, making myself sicker, so that you can NOT help me heal or even show any evidence that you are THERE AT ALL?” So I stopped. I don’t wear my garments. My temple recommend is expired. We don’t pay tithing to the church anymore. We were paying it to various charitable causes and friends and family who were in need, and now we’re just paying off the $31,000 loan we had to take out for my brain surgery four months ago and not tithing at all. But I feel 100% okay…at peace… I don’t have any nagging feeling like I really should be paying tithing to the Church, or I really should wear my garments again, even though I’m very guilt-prone usually. On the other hand, I also don’t have any feeling that I’ll NEVER pay tithing or wear garments again. I strongly believe that what is right for one person at one time in her life may or may not be what’s right for another person or for the same person six months or six years later. I think it’s okay to let that stuff go. Of course, things become more complicated when your significant other wants to keep doing all of it while you do not. That presents its own extra challenge.

I wonder if the implication that by doing x, y, and z, you will receive certain blessings isn’t partly a result of a Gospel culture that attributes anything good that happens to God and anything bad that happens to various sources other than God. I wonder if the more Jewish tradition of readily attributing both good and bad things that happen to God wouldn’t be healthier for us to adopt. I wonder if that wouldn’t help us to stop acting like being more righteous makes people less likely to be unemployed, less likely to have our houses burn down, etc. Because it’s damaging, you know? It sets people up to believe that it’s their own fault somehow when things go badly, when they’re innocent. It sets people up to judge others for whom things go badly: “Oh, well, he keeps losing his job because of x thing he did wrong, or y thing he failed to do…” Maybe the moody, erratic, impulsive, but still very personal God of the Old Testament isn’t such a bad one to believe in, after all?! Sometimes he’s just in a horrible mood and He lets it out on whomever happens to be around, just like if I’m stressed or in a bad mood I might snap at one of my kids for doing basically nothing.

I’m sorry my reply is so long. I just hope you know you’re not alone in what you’re feeling right now. I get it. And I’m so sorry you’re going through this.

[squarepeg]

DarkJedi wrote:

Nowhere do I see that those partaking agree to do anything, rather it appears to me to be we get blessings by partaking the sacrament as the priest is asking the Father.

That’s genius. I’m going to adopt your interpretation. Thank you for pointing that out. I guess I had it in my head that the only possible interpretation was the one where we’re renewing baptismal covenants. Come to think of it, I don’t think there’s anything in the Bible, at least, to indicate that the Last Supper (aka First Sacrament) was for the purpose of renewing baptismal covenants. But I could be wrong.

Roy wrote:

I do not believe the scriptures to be perfect. I believe them to be the words of mostly Godly men as they attempted to express what the religious experience was to them.

[…]But what if, in your experience, God does not comfort and His spirit is never felt and even the Jesus story leaves you feeling flat? Well, I would answer that these scriptures are from the religious experience of the writers and should not be taken as proscriptive for everyone.

Thank you, Roy. I’m with you on interpretation of scripture. I guess I still just like to try and make things “fit” what the majority of the church believes, where possible, if you know what I mean. I think it’s true that sometimes it can’t be done.

[squarepeg]

nibbler wrote:

Maybe the role of god and the role of the regular folk aren’t as static as we’d like them to be. Maybe they’re more fluid, where regular folk transition in and out of the role of god and gods transition in and out of the role of regular folk. Just thoughts. I’m short on time, I guess I could pad out those thoughts later.

You just blew my MIND. 😮

I’ve been reading Terryl Givens’s books (thanks to recommendations on this forum), and it seems like that’s the kind of speculative theory that could’ve been proposed by someone in Joseph Smith’s day and entertained as a real possibility. Maybe it still could. Wish I had the guts to throw this out there during a lesson.

[squarepeg]

Two more examples come to mind of scriptures that promise us we’ll always have the Spirit.

The Sacrament Prayer says that we will always have His spirit to be with us if we take His name upon us, always remember Him, and keep His commandments. Maybe that’s an easy one to write off as impossible since I definitely don’t remember Him always. Sometimes I’m just thinking about something else and not of Him, because if I thought of Him all the time, I couldn’t focus to help my kids with their math, couldn’t get through the grocery checkout, couldn’t make phone calls to the health insurance company about confusing bills, etc. And I break commandments all the time, every day, in spite of my best efforts to keep them. I also developed an allergy to wheat and can’t take the Sacrament bread at all anymore. But I actually don’t know of anyone who can keep the promises we make when we take the Sacrament, so maybe none of us is entitled to the attached blessings, either?

There is also John 14:18, “I will not leave you comfortless; I will come to you.” Jesus was talking to his disciples shortly before he was killed. So maybe that applies to them, and He was talking about when he would be resurrected three days after being crucified; and we only like to think it applies to us?

[squarepeg]

Thanks, nibbler. It really helps me so much to know I’m not alone in this.

nibbler wrote:

I’d tell myself that even Jesus experienced a “why hast thou forsaken me?” moment. It’s kind of a bummer when that moment gets stretched out over years or a lifetime. Maybe we’re all supposed to feel that way at some point when we’re attempting to wean ourselves off of god during the process of becoming an agent unto ourselves (independent).

Yes, I like that explanation: that we might need to suffer alone, as Christ did, in order to learn to become agents unto ourselves. That makes total sense. But then what are we to make of D&C 19:16, “I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent”? Maybe that verse is just…wrong? Or maybe it was in reference to suffering only in the eternities? But I feel like that isn’t how it usually gets interpreted. Maybe Christ’s Atonement was to save us in the END, and not in this life? Is it too much of a downer to bring up this possibility? I don’t want to drag people down with my sincere but sometimes pessimistic-sounding perspectives. (That’s one of the reasons I’ve stayed away from church for the past while.)

[squarepeg]

Reuben wrote:

FWIW, married couples can be home teachers.

Awesome, Reuben! News to me! Forget I posted anything…it seems irrelevant, now.

[squarepeg]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

I have a really hard time cobbling together a meal out of these crumbs. I like your optimism, though.

Haha! I know… I was thinking, “Baby steps…” And that maybe the Home Teaching message should be first in the magazine because Home Teachers teach the whole family whereas VTs “only” teach the women. But now I’m realizing I don’t know why women can’t also be home teachers. Hmm.

[squarepeg]

First of all, what a great username!

Why do we need lessons on missionary work? The diet book metaphor is perfect. If we have found something that enriches our lives and makes us happier and healthier, it will show in everything that we do, and the majority of people with whom we associate will notice and comment and/or ask questions, and we will share with them all about the thing that has changed our lives for the better. It seems like there shouldn’t be a need for lessons and talks directing us to do missionary work. That work should be happening by default. If we’re not getting enough converts, isn’t the problem either that the Gospel isn’t as life-changing or impactful as it needs to be in order to garner interest, or that the membership doesn’t associate closely or frequently enough with the larger community?

Sent from my ONE E1005 using Tapatalk

[squarepeg]

lucysmack wrote:

Several years ago, I became ill and knew God would heal me, my faith would make me whole. I had many blessings that told me I would be healed. Well as you can imagine that didn’t happen, but It did give me a lot of time to think.

The church is so good about keeping us so busy we don’t have time to analyze our own lives.

This was my experience, also. I’m new to this forum and I wish I had found it sooner; I’m in awe of the group of people who posts here. The open-mindedness, intelligence, generosity, and acceptance here will hopefully make it easier to continue to go to church and deal with that nails-on-the-chalkboard feeling, knowing that others are feeling it, too, and we are here to help each other.

Your comment about the church keeping us too busy to analyze our own lives is a thought that I’ve had many times. I s’pose that is one potentially good thing about being really sick: we finally get that opportunity for study and introspection. As difficult as things are now, spiritually, I would not trade it for my former relative ignorance and naivety. (I would gladly trade away the illness for just about anything, however!)

Welcome. Please know you are not alone.

[squarepeg]

Thank you for this post! I keep reading mainstream-Christian apologetics (CS Lewis, GK Chesterton, Timothy Keller, Ravi Zacharias) and still feeling starved and disappointed. Maybe THESE are whom I need to be reading instead!

Sent from my ONE E1005 using Tapatalk

[Author]

Posts