[OBW]

Covert,

I note that this is now 3 days old with no comments. And given that there is a lot here, it should seem at least a little odd. And I would like to make some, but I think that a repetition of some other’s more generic comments about your posts might be in order first. After that, maybe we can look at the content.

I believe I recall at least one post by either Nell or UntoHim asking you to take more care in your manner of writing. To use the spell checker. To read through your sentences to ensure that you are actually saying what you think you are. And one thing you have to watch out for is seeing what you expect to see rather than what is actually there. For example, I am prone to type “think” when I mean “thing” and vice versa. And the spell checker does not catch it. And while I now use Grammarly when typing things within my internet browser (which would often catch this reversal of words) if I start my draft on my computer, I do not have the Grammarly option turned on in Word because it seems to slow things down enough to be annoying.

It often appears that you start some lengthy sentences and then somewhat forget where you were going by the time you get to the end. The results vary, but can mean the sentence does not hold tother as a complete thought, or is even an incomplete thought altogether. For example, toward the end of your post, in the paragraph that starts “One last thing . . .” your second sentence is not a complete sentence. I realize that we often use incomplete sentences instead of phrases separated by commas. But this sentence is making the initial point about something the LR teaches from the first chapters of Genesis. But you never actually make the point. Or is it that the period after the words “condemning evil” is intended to be a comma and the following sentence is what you are trying to say?

This is just one example from the rather lengthy (almost 2 full pages in Times New Roman 12 point font) post. It is not simply constant. But it is quite prevalent. I did not choose the 6th paragraph because it was the first time I had trouble trying to figure out what you were saying.

And while no one has mentioned this before, I notice a tendency to use the phrase “in which” where it does not logically fit and too often makes the meaning of the sentence containing it of uncertain meaning. For example, in the first sentence of paragraph 2, you say “. . . I have to say either you have very a strange book in which you try to call the Holy Bible. . . .” Are you saying that they are calling some other book the Bible. Or are you just saying that they do not have any understanding of how to read the Bible? While not the only issue here, the "in which" simply does not fit and only further confuses the meaning. I could also get a couple of other ideas from this. And the closely following reference to the Book of Mormon does hint at my first assumption. But there is nothing introduced at that point to suggest an alternate “holy book.” I admit that with the right information put on the record, I could make that assertion. But I am perplexed as to how to read and understand your writing.

Maybe English is not your primary language. And that might be helpful to know. I might be less prone to getting picky about grammar and wording if I knew that. But it still would not help to answer the uncertainties as to meaning, though I might try harder to read between the lines. But it would still result in uncertainty.

I know I have complained about your propensity to rush to grand conclusions rather than suggest an idea to discuss. And your tendency to resort to ad hominems (attacks on the person(s) rather than the idea, teaching, etc.) as a means of trying to force your conclusion to be accepted. But despite that, I actually think you have made some points worthy of discussion. The problem is that they have been poisoned from the outset. The holders of the errant thinking have been painted with such strong sentiments (including calling the books, references, footnotes, etc., that they read as Satanic) that it is difficult to have a discussion that might tend to be less caustic or even find some of it rather benign or even OK.

So my question to you (rather than suggestion or dictate from a moderator) is this. Are you willing to take the time to restate less than all of this post (or any other post) in a clear manner, without comments on the character of the writer(s) or followers — or even the teachings (outside of any specific premise about them) — that we can discuss. Allow finding that a teaching is wrong, inconsistent with the Bible, etc., to replace characterizations of the people. Instead of starting with “God’s life vs Lee’s life” which is a rather complex concept, start with a bite-sized topic. Maybe after a succession of such topics, we might get to a point where we can consider tying the overall effect of such discrete items into a more general finding. Even something that resembles a replacement of God’s life with something (even if not precisely “Lee’s life).

I know it seems that we are picking on you. We are not. And what we say is not for the purpose of demeaning you or driving you away. I think some of your ideas are worthy of discussion. But at something less than “everything including the kitchen sink” all at once. It would be better to deal with a short homily than a full hour-long sermon that goes all over the place. And surely better than trying to take on the entire LC lexicon and library of writings in a single thread.