Updated: Sunday, 1 Oct 14
|David O. McKay|
(click on name for his brief statement)
|John (Jack) R. Howard|
(President of Lewis & Clark College)
On Saturday, Aug 30, I sent friend Joseph Dillard a link to Part 4 of these conversations with David O. McKay and John R. Howard,
Interesting. Two comments. You were seeking validation from respected authorities regarding issues that were ahead of the times. they not only were not priorities, they were issues to be ignored and repressed as long as possible, either for normative reasons or because they were deemed irrelevant to the mission of the church. Therefore you were, to use an old Arkansas expression, "pissing into the wind."
Secondly, the comment by McKay that you will succeed as long as you seek the guidance of Jesus, is death wrapped in shiny gift-wrap. Why? Because if you don't succeed, and you didn't, the implication is that you either weren't doing Jesus' will - that is, you were actually working against him, which means for the devil, or you just weren't trying hard enough, which means you let the Lord down. He sent you to Earth with a mission and you failed.
This is why this statement is a demonic pile of crap.
I was delighted by Dillard's straight talk and replied accordingly:
Nope, not validation, but honest talk. Doesn't mean I'm not still pissing in the wind, which may be so. I'll have to wait to see how it smells. Second, that's what McKay believed and probably still believes as an inner figure. Did you click on his name and view his "testimony" in the flesh? Did you register my poem "Nathan's Cry"? I'm going to have some very severe stuff to say to him before long….
PS. Hey, old friend, thanks for your straight talk. This conversation with McKay and Howard is an outgrowth of a surprising conversation with a local Mormon guy named George J, a Saul of Tarsus type. We're scheduled to talk again on Wednesday, which will be the fifth time (if I've counted right). I've dreamed of him twice, the first time as a guy that looked like him on July 4, 2010, before meeting him in the flesh later that morning…The more recent dream being on this past July 13. I'm trying to check out the accuracy of my projection on him, because if it is accurate, it will stay. If it isn't, then I'll get it back (via wind-blown piss?) and continue to wonder what he represents to me! So, bottom line is that these inner/outer conversations are going somewhere, but I'm not sure how they will play out. Both McKay and Howard were worldly wise guys in the flesh with different views of spirituality. (John Howard was a liberal Presbyterian, as well as a staunch Republican.) McKay was thoroughly Mormon and much more certain about the nature of spirituality than was Howard in the flesh, but he was not as courageous as Howard in seeking answers to "the important questions". It will be interesting to see how both these inner figures will continue to talk to me…. as well as you as an outer figure!
Love and gratitude,ENK: John and David, this conversation is getting a bit freaky, if not downright crazy. Can you handle it?
On September 1, 2014,t 9:30 AM, Joseph Dillard again replied:
I think it’s great you’re doing these interviews as well as getting ready to talk to [Georg]. Why? Because the more encounters you have the more data you have. The more information you have, hopefully the more objective you become. That means you will be able to separate stuff that you can use from delusional, self-validating contexts. It would be nice if you managed to get some closure on all this before you die! However, just be aware that while information can come from external sources, closure is something that pretty much has to come from within, as dissimilar, conflicting life strands are woven into a larger, integrated whole…ENK: David, later today [1 Sep 14] I read a Face Book comment to John Delin's Mormon Stories podcast interview of Terryl and Fiona Givens regarding their new book "The Crucible of Doubt". The comment was posted at 11:17 PM last night (Aug 31) by a young man named Nathan, which caught my eye. He writes:
love and blessings,
It’s late, but after listening to most of Part II of this [Mormon Stories podcast] program, I just have to get this thought off of my chest. I think the only thing that would bring me back into the church is if, as an institution, it did what I grew up hearing from the church I should always be doing, and that is REPENT. I would like to see an influential apostle, like, say, Elder Oaks, stand before the members in general conference and official lyrics apologize for all the strictly faith-promoting history which the church has been teaching for years and years. And I’d like the apology to be given without qualification or rationalization. And I’d like him to acknowledge how the church has benefited by choosing to only share their sanitized version of events. And I don’t want him to just throw the church’s historical department under the bus. I want him to admit that the policy of dishonesty went all the way up to the president. Then, once this “confession” has been given, the church just has to let the chips fall where they may, and hope for the best. I’m sure such a confession will cause possibly great harm to the church’s tithing revenues, but, speaking for myself, they would quite possibly regain my loyalty. But I know they will never issue a public apology.
So, David, do you have anything to say about this? You know, of course, that I thought of my poem Nathan's Cry immediately....
DOM: Yes, I believe I do have something to say about Nathan's current comment, as well as your Nathan's Cry....
To be continued in Part 6...