- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I happened across this article by chance, but I think there’s some really good stuff in there that could be helpful to some here. Bushman is of course best known for Rough Stone Rolling and his honest portrayal of Joseph Smith from a believer’s point of view. https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/12/31/agnostic-believer/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/12/31/agnostic-believer/ Some quotes I thought might be relevant to some of us (emphasis added by me):
Quote:Did you ever have any religious doubts? When did you get your testimony of the church?
That sounds like if you have a testimony, you can’t have doubts and issues, but that’s a poor way of looking at it.Here’s what happened. I’m at Harvard. I have a lot of good friends in the church. We meet every Sunday. We’re all talk-talk-talk guys. We’re dealing with everything under the sun. My problem is not Joseph Smith or history. My problem is God. Is there enough evidence to believe in God? I was drawn towards agnosticism, where you cannot say one way or another if there’s a God.
(This was similar to my own experience, sans the Harvard friends.)On the Book of Mormon in the mission field:
Quote:When I arrived in Cambridge (Mass.), the mission president, a professor of agriculture from Utah State [University] and so wise, asked, “Do you have a testimony?” I said, “No, I’m not sure I believe in God.” But he didn’t send me home.
He said, “Would you read this book and tell me what you think of it?” He handed me a Book of Mormon and sent me on the train to Halifax, which took 20 hours to get there from Boston. I spent the next three months asking every question I could about the Book of Mormon witnesses — Were they deceived? Were they hypnotized? Were they in on the game? After that three months, the mission president came up and asked us to bear our testimonies and, when he came to me, I just said, “I know the Book of Mormon is right.” I was prepared to commit myself, which I did, and never wavered from that.
But I have had continual questions ever since. They’ve never gone away. Quote:What did you mean by, the Book of Mormon was “right”?
I don’t know what I meant by that. It was just the word that came to me rather than “true.” When I read the book, I believed those things were happening. I could picture them happening. They seemed very real to me. So I’ve just always said it was right.
I have a little difficulty with the word “true.” I am willing to say it’s true for me and it is something I’m willing to grasp. But it’s not something I can persuade everyone, including Harvard professors, to believe in.
(I also have some difficulty with the word true, but I’m not sure “right” is the correct word for me either. I don’t believe the events of the BoM are true or right. I do have testimony of the book, though. Instead of using words like true or right, my testimony is that the Book of Mormon is a good book that testifies of Jesus Christ in the same way as the Bible. Like the Bible, it can and does bring people closer to God.)Quote:How do you define truth?
We have a very confined notion of truth that’s really defined for us by science, which requires evidence or proof to be accepted.
In ancient times, truth was connected to goodness — truth was what led you to a good life.And, for me, that’s always been more important. I’ve always valued the truth that led me to the right kind of life, the one which makes me a good father and husband and prompts me to help people be good. With that kind of truth, I’m very much willing to say, I know the gospel is true.Quote:Have you changed your mind over the years about any of the church’s founding events?
In terms of the particulars — the overall story about the First Vision, gold plates, translation and a set of revelations to form a church — my view remains pretty much the way it was. But I do think about some things differently.
The Book of Mormon is a problem right now. It’s so baffling to so many that Joseph was not even looking at the gold plates [to translate them]. And there’s so much in the Book of Mormon that comes out of the 19th century that there’s a question of whether or not the text is an exact transcription of Nephi’s and Mormon’s words, or if it has been reshaped by inspiration to be more suitable for us, a kind of an expansion or elucidation of the Nephite record for our times. I have no idea how that might have worked or whether that’s true. But there are just too many scholars now, faithful church scholars, who find 19th-century material in that text. That remains a little bit of a mystery, just how it came to be.
Quote:How do you — as a person who once studied physics and math — explain the kind of mystical experiences claimed by Smith and his followers, the witnesses, and those who attended the dedication of the Kirtland Temple?
The kind of faith that early Mormons used to have or the kind of experiences that various peoples around the Earth have, where visions and powerful things come to them, are sort of shut down by our insistence on what we call “rational.” I want to leave room for the mystical — not that I necessarily accept everything every mystic says — but I want to be very tolerant of that mode of apprehending world. When people report those experiences, I believe they have to be taken seriously as part of the human experience.
It’s like saying, “I’m not going to listen to music or to let myself be moved by romantic feelings.” You’re cutting off part of yourself and your life if you say that’s just beyond human capacity.No “cancel culture” for Brigham Young:
Quote:You can have respect but don’t you always have to report their flaws as well, like Brigham Young and his views on race?
My heart goes out to Brigham Young right now. He’s becoming the fall guy [for the church’s former racist priesthood-temple ban.] We really need someone to go through his biography and treat the latter half of his life empathetically. But on race, he really was off base. There seemed to be not just a sad acknowledgment of the limitations of African Americans in the church, but sort of a vindictive quality to him. And he spoke with some force.
We just have to say he was wrong. But it’s not our job to condemn him or to say, therefore, we’re canceling him, that he’s worthless. We have to keep it all in perspective.Quote:How have you seen the church evolve over the decades on race, feminism or LGBTQ issues?
I subsume this category into what I call cosmopolitanism, which is one of the most powerful influences in the church right now. By cosmopolitanism, I mean that we’re suddenly able to see ourselves as others see us and we can picture ourselves as one religion among a number of religions and a number of viewpoints.We can see how Mormonism looks from a global view. And as soon as we do that, then the way we treat women becomes problematic in terms of the way the educated world in general is looking upon women and race and LGBTQ issues and so on. We have to find ways of couching our message so that it makes sense to the world at large. At the same time, we need to hold onto our roots in a parochial way. I mean that in a positive sense. We all, even the most cosmopolitan people, need a home base in Mormonism.Quote:Do you see the church changing as it moves into new countries?
Of course it’s going to change.
The question is: What is doctrine and what is practice? What are the essentials we have to hold onto at all costs? We speak as if essential doctrines are clearly defined and that they will never change, but we can never say what they truly are.We say we believe God and faith are the basis of a good life, but it is always going to be remolded and reshaped. We just have to live with that. In the end, it can be very therapeutic and strengthening if you have to think through what you really believe, what you could stand up for, what you would speak about at the United Nations or to a group of the Harvard faculty. Quote:How do you understand the reverence for Latter-day Saint prophets?
If it leads to the idea that prophets never make a mistake, even basic ones, that’s going to get us in trouble. Brigham did make a mistake on race, and saying he didn’t just gets us in more trouble. It’s better to say they do make mistakes like anyone else. But it’s of great importance for us to believe that God is leading us. And that begins with believing God is leading the church, that God is with the church.
Quote:Where do you see the church going forward?
Well, I have these two big words: cosmopolitanism, which I’ve discussed already, and power. We’ve become a very powerful organization, not just because of our wealth — which is a critical part of power — but because of the very loyal members who are in positions of power, especially in the United States, but more and more in other countries, too….
Our challenge right now is to know what to do with this power. We have a duty to save the world, but how do we go about that? We’ve done it through missionary work in the past and we will continue to do that, but do we have some larger calling?
The ultimate good end of cosmopolitanism is to recognize that the work of God is going to be handled by the 99.9% of the population that’s not Mormon. It can’t just be this tiny speck of a church.Wow! That’s impressive. Brother Bushman gave a master interview here. He seems to stay absolutely faithful to what he believes in his heart but never presents it in a negative way (As if to say “I don’t believe this reported event happened.”)
It sounds to me like he is still “drawn towards agnosticism” which would naturally imply doubt on any of the reported miraculous events that, if true, would seem to prove the existence of God and also go a long ways towards also proving God’s support of our church. I understand him to be saying that visions etc. are to be appreciated as a part of the “human experience.” (maybe I am leaning too much on his word choice of “human experience.” I interpret that to mean that visions are part of life and are not evidence necessarily or divine interactions.)
It feels like he lives his religion with an anthropologist perspective, He studies it and talks about it with a healthy amount of respect, appreciation, and admiration. He is not there to prove or disprove historical events. What sort of anthropologist would study a community only to later write about how backwards, superstitious, and primitive they were?
I think in a different interview he was asked more directly if he believed XYZ church foundational historical claim actually happened and he responded that that sort of question wasn’t the sort that interested him. Looking again to an anthropological perspective, what kind of anthropologist would be seeking to prove or disprove the foundational myth stories of the culture he studies? I understand that the anthropological field demands that you refrain from making those sorts of judgments. It does make me curious how his temple recommend interviews might go. He probably just answers “yes” and “no” like the rest of us.
Quote:By cosmopolitanism, I mean that we’re suddenly able to see ourselves as others see us and we can picture ourselves as one religion among a number of religions and a number of viewpoints. We can see how Mormonism looks from a global view. [snip]
The ultimate good end of cosmopolitanism is to recognize that the work of God is going to be handled by the 99.9% of the population that’s not Mormon. It can’t just be this tiny speck of a church.
Back again to the anthropological worldview, a community can be good and right without having access to ultimate truths that make it better or more “good and right” than other communities. How then do we work with other communities to help achieve the “work of God” (and what does the term “work of God” mean to someone that may be drawn to agnosticism)? This is the sort of question that I believe Bro. Bushman would find interesting.
Quote:The question is: What is doctrine and what is practice? What are the essentials we have to hold onto at all costs? We speak as if essential doctrines are clearly defined and that they will never change, but we can never say what they truly are.
I think maybe we overcomplicate things, where “doctrines” have to be the whole shebang – where we were before we were born, why are we here, where are we going after we die, the nature of god, the particulars of what a correct church should look like, the particulars of what correct ordinances are and what they should look like, etc.
Jesus simplified things:
You shall love the lord your god with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind
You shall love your neighbor as yourself
I don’t know that I’d want “love your neighbor as yourself” to ever change…
But my point is that I think we (as a church) get too hung up on establishing things as doctrines. What’s true, who’s right, who’s wrong, what’s an authoritative belief.
Joseph Smith wrote:I love that man better who swears a stream as long as my arm, yet deals justice to his neighbors and mercifully deals his substance to the poor, than the smooth-faced hypocrite. I do not want you to think that I’m very righteous, for I am not. There was one good man, and his name was Jesus
Slightly altering this; does it really matter that we’re able to define the offices of the priesthood with all of their associated responsibilities if no one in the church has charity?
Some doctrines at church help people be more charitable and I’d say that there are some doctrines that drive people away from being charitable. This is my dead horse, but unfortunately I’d categorize most of the doctrines I hear taught on Sunday as useless trivia, things that might make me feel I’m right but things that don’t make me a better person.
I’d be all for changing the doctrines that move us away from the two great commandments, keeping the ones that help us fulfil the two great commandments, and deemphasizing the ones that are neutral.
Edit: I’ll call myself to repentance. I don’t mean to throw us under the bus for seeking certainty. Feeling like you’ve got a definitive answer is a human need and can also serve as an anchoring point when exploration is needed.
Quote:I think we way overcomplicate things…
I agree with Nibbler.
I think we want revelation to be the list of things to do a d the prophet to be the person to tell us what to do, instead of realizing the gospel is to teach us to figure out what to do without being told to do so.
Ministering visits and the like are programs to help people live the gospel. But ideally, they shouldn’t have to be told to minister. They should be moved to do so from inside.
It’s just hard to run a global organization that way.
I should probably point out that I feel like our changes to “doctrine” over the years has generally moved us more towards the two great commandments than away from them. That’s not to say that we haven’t got a long way to go, but I think we’re at least pointed in the right direction.
I love the things you excerpted here. I have some different views in some of the fine points, I assume, but nearly all of what you quoted resonates with me. Old-Timer wrote:
I love the things you excerpted here. I have some different views in some of the fine points, I assume, but nearly all of what you quoted resonates with me.
My views also don’t perfectly match Bushman’s, but the idea that he has views that are not necessarily orthodox mainstream Mormon and admits that, including some specificity, also resonates with me and is enlightening. Brother Bushman while admitting his questions have been extant over his lifetime has served in church callings such as bishop and stake president in addition to being a fairly well known and respected historian.
I actually thought of you when posting the thread, Old-Timer. It is from you I learned how to process the Joseph Smith story much in the same way it appears Bushman does. I believe Joseph Smith not because I believe the First Vision occurred exactly the way it is written in canon, but because Joseph Smith believed he had a vision. I wasn’t there and I don’t know what happened but I am open to the idea that something happened (I do believe something happened) and that idea that one or all of the accounts are somewhere near what Joseph thinks and believes happened. We try so hard to discount the mystical in our day but that doesn’t mean it can or should be discounted.
nibbler wrote:
I should probably point out that I feel like our changes to “doctrine” over the years has generally moved us more towards the two great commandments than away from them.That’s not to say that we haven’t got a long way to go, but I think we’re at least pointed in the right direction.
I am in complete agreement with this and I think Bushman would agree with the premise as well. I likewise think the changes are bringing us closer to what the church was meant to be like and was like in the beginning.
Bushman:
Quote:How have you seen the church evolve over the decades on race, feminism or LGBTQ issues?
I subsume this category into what I call cosmopolitanism, which is one of the most powerful influences in the church right now. By cosmopolitanism, I mean that we’re suddenly able to see ourselves as others see us and we can picture ourselves as one religion among a number of religions and a number of viewpoints. We can see how Mormonism looks from a global view. And as soon as we do that, then the way we treat women becomes problematic in terms of the way the educated world in general is looking upon women and race and LGBTQ issues and so on. We have to find ways of couching our message so that it makes sense to the world at large. At the same time, we need to hold onto our roots in a parochial way. I mean that in a positive sense. We all, even the most cosmopolitan people, need a home base in Mormonism.
Quote:Where do you see the church going forward?
Our challenge right now is to know what to do with this power. We have a duty to save the world, but how do we go about that? We’ve done it through missionary work in the past and we will continue to do that, but do we have some larger calling? The ultimate good end of cosmopolitanism is to recognize that the work of God is going to be handled by the 99.9% of the population that’s not Mormon. It can’t just be this tiny speck of a church.
I do want to comment a bit more on this specific point (cosmopolitanism). Maybe it’s colloquial, but I can’t see a lot of this type of cosmopolitanism in my own ward/area (I will except the college branch). Yes it does exist, especially among the younger members of my ward (who are fewer and farther between these days) but there are many in the “old guard” who absolutely don’t see outside their ingrained us vs. them “one true church” mentality. What’s interesting about this statement from Bushman, and I understand he is making an observation, is that these people (old guard) I am thinking of are in Bushman’s general age group. I hope that cosmopolitanism is the force that Bushman says it is and in the big picture I can see what he sees – but on the small screen it doesn’t appear to be this way where I live. Another interesting aspect to that for me is that I live in the liberal northeast US where we’re kind of proud about being different than “Utah Mormons.” I think in this respect Utah Mormons may have us beat despite our demographics. Interestingly I heard a member of my ward recently lament how liberal about some things (he used women in the priesthood and gay marriage as examples) Utahns have become.
What I’m really trying to say here is that I’m not sure the general membership does take this cosmopolitan view of the church – that they aren’t really at the place where they see us as a church among many or that it’s not just us who are doing the work of God (which Bushman later alludes to).
Regarding the “Us vs Them” or more “Cosmopolitan” views championed by people, I think it depends… Here are some of what I would consider are the key factors:
a)
What are the teachers teaching/Is there space for a more nuanced, cosmopolitan viewpoint?I know when I teach, this is pre-quisite for me – it is my way of making space for myself in the conversation. b)
What is the curriculum supplying?Lessons that are on subjects that are more us vs them get that air time. c)
Awareness. I have found that those who are more aware of outside perspectives allow space for them. NOTE: I think that we tend to stereotype it as “us vs them” only or “one of many” viewpoints only – but I am not sure that is accurate. I think that the majority of the saints embrace the paradox of both viewpoints – it is a case of “Everyone is out to get us AND we are only one of many minority religions out there”. And unless you are in leadership or a faith transition or know someone in a faith transition (or all of the above), there isn’t a huge need to try to bridge both world views.
AmyJ wrote:
NOTE: I think that we tend to stereotype it as “us vs them” only or “one of many” viewpoints only – but I am not sure that is accurate. I think that the majority of the saints embrace the paradox of both viewpoints – it is a case of “Everyone is out to get us AND we are only one of many minority religions out there”. And unless you are in leadership or a faith transition or know someone in a faith transition (or all of the above), there isn’t a huge need to try to bridge both world views.
I’m looking at this more from the perspective of we being one tiny bunch of Christians among all Christians tasked with saving the whole world as opposed to the us vs. them or minority church. One of the things Bushman said (it’s in the last quote of the OP) was “The ultimate good end of cosmopolitanism is to recognize that the work of God is going to be handled by the 99.9% of the population that’s not Mormon. It can’t just be this tiny speck of a church.” My old guard friends tend to espouse the idea that our responsibility as the one true church and possessors of the restored gospel is to save the whole world and everyone who has ever lived on it. I think the more cosmopolitan view (which matches mine) is that responsibility is not ours alone and, as indicated by Bushman, probably not mostly ours – other Christians will do most of the “saving” work of God. To me the idea that this tiny somewhat insignificant church could possibly save the world is frankly pretty absurd – but I know people in my ward who wholeheartedly believe that and would call me a heretic for thinking otherwise. So it’s not so much the persecution/minority complex as it is the idea that we are one of many churches doing the same thing – spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ. What I was trying to say in my previous post was that I don’t think most conservative/orthodox members are at that point of thinking we are in that position (one of many instead of sole proprietors) nor do I think the average “floater”* member recognizes that concept. So it’s not so much us vs. them as it is a recognition that we’re part of something much bigger than we are – cosmopolitans.
*Floater member is a newish term for me. It’s really for lack of a better term, but floater members are there most Sundays but really haven’t paid much attention to how things have changed around them. The old frog in the pot analogy works in this case (except that analogy really is faulty – real frogs do recognize it’s getting warmer and jump out). The floater member is more likely to quote Spencer Kimball than Dieter Uchtdorf and probably hasn’t read anything published by the likes of Bushman or Givens. She’s more likely to testify “I know the church/gospel is true” than “I know Jesus Christ is my Savior.” They’re just going along with the flow like they have for 20 or 30 years – floating. I don’t think they’re evil or malicious, but they really don’t know much about the church or the gospel and exist in a state of ignorant bliss. They’re just there.
DarkJedi wrote:
So it’s not so much the persecution/minority complex as it is the idea that we are one of many churches doing the same thing – spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ. What I was trying to say in my previous post was that I don’t think most conservative/orthodox members are at that point of thinking we are in that position (one of many instead of sole proprietors) nor do I think the average “floater”* member recognizes that concept. So it’s not so much us vs. them as it is a recognition that we’re part of something much bigger than we are – cosmopolitans.
Quote:only two churches, Church of the Lamb and church of devil, 1 Ne. 14:10.
I agree with what you are saying but I also believe that this is consistent with the us vs them mentality. About a year ago we were studying Lehi’s and Nephi’s dreams in Sunday school. We talked about how the church of the devil (which at one time had been understood by BRM to refer to the catholic church) refers not to a single organization but every organization or movement that hinders the work of the church of the Lamb. Part of what non-LDS churches do to hinder the work of the church of the lamb is to offer a counterfeit salvation. Members of those churches do not feel like they need the LDS Jesus because they believe that they already have Jesus. I suggested that, just like the church of the devil had been thought to be a single organization but our understanding of it has evolved to include all things that fight against the gospel, perhaps the title of church of the lamb could be similarly used to describe all organizations and movements that push the gospel work forward. I received VERY strong pushback on this. We seem to be highly territorial of our anointed by God status.Therefore, according to the BOM, if there are only two “churches” in opposition and WE are the Church of the Lamb and every other church in existence is part of the church of the devil then it really is a matter of “us vs. them.” We do not believe that salvation is offered in these churches, we do not accept their ordinances as valid, and we actively proselytize to their membership. Not only do we feel that they are not able to help us to save the world, we tend to feel that we need to save them too.
I hear what you’re saying Roy, and that is certainly part of the ingrained teaching that has pervaded the church for a long time. It certainly has that scriptural backing depending on your interpretation of that scripture. And as you say, some leaders of the past have some very definitive interpretations. Like all scripture, I take this one with a grain of salt. My general view of scripture is that it is the individual writer’s view or interpretation of things which may differ from my own understanding. I thought it interesting in the interview Bushman talked about 19th century influence in the BoM but in his usual style he never says anything about how that influences his view of the book. I should also note that as a former Catholic I take issue with them being referred to as the church of the devil (and recognize that such ideas have been refuted in more recent times). The point is that the us vs them thing is separate from what Bushman asserts about the church being more cosmopolitan and “one of many.” It’s mostly opposite the us vs them view. I personally believe we are one of many and I know a handful of people who believe it. I vaguely recall something along that line being said in a GC talk not too long ago but I don’t have time at the moment to research it. Generally speaking I think all churches are part of the Church of the Lamb (and I would include Judaism, Islam, and perhaps other religious traditions in that group). I think that’s far from the more mainstream/orthodox view most church members have and that’s at least in part because of what you cite which includes the “one true church” viewpoint.
I got the new book by Fiona and Terryl Givens (
All Things New: Rethinking Sin, Salvation, and Everything in Between) as a gift and have started reading it. It does address how some protestant thought and theology has pervaded Mormonism, but I’m not sure it will get to this point in particular. I’m only a couple chapters in but it has been a great read so far. DarkJedi wrote:
Like all scripture, I take this one with a grain of salt. My general view of scripture is that it is the individual writer’s view or interpretation of things which may differ from my own understanding.
My line is that you don’t read the scriptures, the scriptures read you. Stated differently, scriptures are less about revealing universal truth and more about revealing your nature as evidenced through your interpretation of and reaction to said scriptures.
DarkJedi wrote:
The point is that the us vs them thing is separate from what Bushman asserts about the church being more cosmopolitan and “one of many.” It’s mostly opposite the us vs them view. I personally believe we are one of many and I know a handful of people who believe it. I vaguely recall something along that line being said in a GC talk not too long ago but I don’t have time at the moment to research it. Generally speaking I think all churches are part of the Church of the Lamb (and I would include Judaism, Islam, and perhaps other religious traditions in that group). I think that’s far from the more mainstream/orthodox view most church members have and that’s at least in part because of what you cite which includes the “one true church” viewpoint.
Something that contributes to the “Us vs Them” mentality against the “Cosmopolitan” mentality is the fundamental shift from being “anointed of God” and “a peculiar people” to “religious in our own way – just like everyone else” shifts the church members into hard questions (on pretty much any subject), and potentially reconfigures individual member’s cost-benefit analysis on church sacrifices to the negative. By switching to a more “Cosmopolitan” viewpoint, it sets up an individual to other ways of doing things (looking at the other churches and how they have answered the questions).
But then again, I view all churches right now as a loose coalition of individuals who contribute money, time, and other resources to a cause in exchange for identity, stability, tribal inclusion, culture, entertainment, and to a degree, other needs. From where I sit, these organizations are being replaced by/supplemented by other organizations that can fulfill those specific organizational roles better – the list would include social services (both government sponsored and other organizations like the Red Cross), education, politics, social media subgroups, among others.
In a sense, the church’s shift to the “home centered, church supported” model was brilliant because it shifts the focus from becoming a “Super Organization” or a “Super Partner to Organizations” to the unit of the family. It also forces the family to decide how “relevant” the church and it’s traditions are to the family – which is a complex question which may not be the answer the church is looking for. It also forces the family to do the heavy lifting to identify service activities, which can contribute to the limiting of community togetherness. One of the things I have seen (looking from the outside) is that the Senior Primary Program focuses on the 8,9, and 10 year old’s setting goals and collaborating with the parents (home centered) and then the Primary leaders (church-supported) to complete the goals. But if the child(ren) and parent(s) can complete the goals on their own, then what relevance do the Primary leaders have?
On a personal note, our primary is looking to start up Achievement Days (for 8-11 year old girls) again – and I chose to be the leader for this group again. I put together a list of activities to propose to the girls that I wanted to do/themes that were relevant to this age group and were Zoom-friendly – but were pretty non-religious (though in line with church teachings on Community, Self-Reliance, Service, and Personal Growth). At our first Primary planning meeting, we went over the general handbook for Primary – and I was amazed about how the recent changes for the Primary Children were heavily focused on teaching the gospel and planning activities around the mission of the church. I had brought up 3-4 not religiously focused activities I was thinking of presenting to the girls, and (predictably) got some pushback from the Primary President (“those aren’t really gospel-focused”) and then she also gave some anti-pushback (“but those are in line with the church and are really important”) – and she concluded with “I don’t know”. She also mentioned that she doesn’t always by instinct see how my activities will work – that they come together really well.
She left the planning with me and another sister from the Primary Presidency to talk to the girls to see what they want to do, and she didn’t oppose me bringing up my list of concepts to the girls. At this point, I think that they don’t want to try to call another person and take over the executive functioning of dealing with that person and planning those activities – that I won’t hear anything else about it as long as I keep to my current course.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.