Unlike the child, the youth becomes an individual who thinks beyond the present and forms theories about everything, delighting especially in considerations of that which is not. Not many people believe in actual evil anymore—not even in the Church. We live in a World that embraces relative truths and morality as the modern Church prepares itself for a figurative battle for souls. However, some of us have been preparing ourselves for a much more literal battle of Armageddon between very real forces of evil and those of good. We have some resources left to us from old days when people still believed that darkness walked among us. Those old rituals and spells shield this place from creatures that do not belong among the holy. There is in the brain of each individual the possibility for all these developments but they are not realized. Humans have a great more freedom than they ever use, because they operate out of habits, prejudices, and stereotypes. According to the deliberative model of democracy, it is a necessary condition for attaining legitimacy and rationality with regard to collective decision-making processes in a polity, that the institutions of this polity are so arranged that what is considered in the common interest of all results from processes of collective deliberation conducted rationally and fairly among free and equal individuals. #RandolphHarris 1 of 25

The more collective decisions making processes approximate this model the more increases the presumption of their legitimacy and rationality. Why? The basis of legitimacy in democratic institutions is to be traced back to the presumption that the instances which claim obligatory power for themselves do so because their decisions represent an impartial standpoint said to be equally in the interests of all. This presumption can be fulfilled only if such decisions are in principle open to appropriate processes of deliberation by free and equal citizens. The discourse model of ethics formulates the most general principles and moral intuitions behind the validity claims of a deliberative model of democracy. The basic idea behind this model is that only those norms (id est, general rules of action and institutional arrangements) can be said to be valid (id est, morally binding), which would be agreed to by all those affected by their consequences, if such agreement were reached as a consequences, of a process of deliberation that had the following features: 1) participation in such deliberation is governed by the norms of equality and symmetry; all have the same chances to initiate speech acts, to question, to interrogate, and open the debate; 2) all have the right to question the assigned topics of conversation; and 3) all have the right to initiate reflexive arguments about the very rules of the discourse procedure and the way in which they are applied or carried out. #RandolphHarris 2 of 25

There are no prima facie rules limiting the agenda of the conversation, or the identity of the participants, as long as each excluded person or group can justifiably show that they are relevantly affected by the proposed norm under question. In certain circumstances this would mean that citizens of a democratic community would have to enter into a practical discourse with noncitizens who may be residing in their countries, at their borders, or in neighboring communities if there are matters that affect them all. Ecology and environmental issues in general are a perfect example of such instances when the boundaries of discourses keep expanding because the consequences of our actions expand and environmental issues in general are a perfect example of such instances when the boundaries of discourses keep expanding because the consequences of our actions expand and affect increasingly more people. The procedural specifics of those special argumentation situations called “practical discourses” are not automatically transferable to a marco-institutional level, nor is it necessary that they should be so transferable. A theory of democracy, as opposed to a general moral theory, would have to be concerned with the question of institutional specifications and practical feasibility. #RandolphHarris 3 of 25

Nonetheless, the procedural constraints of the discourse model can act as test cases for critically evaluating the criteria of membership and the rules of agenda setting, and for the structuring of public discussions within and among institutions. According to the deliberative model, procedures of deliberation generate legitimacy as well as assure some degree of practical rationality. However, what are the claims to practical rationality of such deliberative democratic processes? Deliberative processes are essential to the rationality of collective decision-making processes for three reasons. First, as Bernard Manin has observed in an excellent article “On Legitimacy and Deliberation,” deliberative processes are also processes that impart information. New information is imparted because 1) no single individual can anticipate and foresee all the variety of perspectives through which matters of ethics and politics would be perceived by different individuals; and 2) no single individual can possess all the information deemed relevant to a certain decision affecting all. Deliberation is a procedure for being informed. Furthermore, much political theory under the influence of economic models of reasoning in particular proceeds from a methodological fiction: this is the methodological fiction of an individual with an ordered set of coherent preferences. This fiction does not have much relevance in the political World. #RandolphHarris 4 of 25

On complex social and political issues, more often then not, individuals may have views and wishes but no ordered set of coherent preferences. This fiction does not have much relevance in the political World. On complex social and political issues, more often than not, individuals may have views and wishes but no ordered set of preferences, since the latter would imply that they would be enlightened not only about the preferences but about the consequences and relative merits of each of their preferred choices in advance. It is actually the deliberative process itself that is likely to produce such an outcome by leading the individual to further critical reflection on one’s already held views and opinions; it is incoherent to assume that individuals can start a process of public deliberation with a level of conceptual clarity about their choices and preferences that can actually result only from a successful process of deliberation. Likewise, the formation of coherent preferences cannot precede deliberation; it can only succeed it. Very often individuals’ wishes as well as vies and opinions conflict with one another. In the course of deliberation and the exchange of views with others, individuals become more aware of such conflicts and feel compelled to undertake a coherent ordering. #RandolphHarris 5 of 25

More significantly, the very procedure of articulating a view in public imposes a certain reflexivity on individual preferences and opinions. When presenting their point of view and position to others, individuals must support them by articulating good reasons in a public context to their codeliberators. This process of articulating good reasons in public forces the individual to think of what would count as a good reason for all others involved. One is thus forced to think from the standpoint of all involved for whose agreement one is “wooing.” Nobody can convince others in public of one’s point of view without being able to state why what appears good, plausible, just, and expedient to one can also be considered so from the standpoint of all involved. Reasoning from the standpoint of all involved not only forces a certain coherence upon one’s own views but also forces one to adopt a standpoint called the “enlarged mentality.” A deliberative model of democracy suggests a necessary but no sufficient condition of practical rationality, because, as with any procedure, it can be misinterpreted, misapplied, and abused. Procedures can neither dictate outcomes nor define the quality of the reasons advanced in argumentation nor control the quality of the reasoning and rules of logic and inference used by participants. Procedural models of rationality are underdetermined. #RandolphHarris 6 of 25

Nonetheless, the discourse model makes some provisions against its own misuses and abuses in that the reflexivity condition built into the model allow abuses and misapplications at the first level to be challenged at a second, metalevel of discourse. Likewise, the facie fixed but can be revised and subjected to reexamination. Such would be the normative justification of majority rule as a decision procedure following from this model: in many instances the majority rule is fair and rational decision procedure, not because legitimacy resides in numbers but because if a majority of people are convinced at one point on the basis of reasons formulated as closely as possible as a result of a process of discursive deliberation that conclusion A is the right thing to do, then this conclusion can remain valid until challenged by good reasons by some other group. It is not the sheer numbers that support the rationality of the conclusion, but the presumption that if a large number of people see certain matters a certain way as a result of following certain kinds of rational procedures of deliberation and decision-making, then such a conclusion has a presumptive claim to being rational until shown to be otherwise. #RandolphHarris 7 of 25

The simple practice of having a ruling and an opposition party in democracies in fact incorporates this principle: we accept the will of the majority at the end of an electoral process that has been fairly and correctly carried out, but even when we accept the legitimacy of the process we may have grave doubts about the rationality of the outcome. The practice of there being parliamentary opposition says that the grounds on which the majority party claims to govern can be examined, challenged, tested, criticized, and rearticulated. Parliamentary procedures of opposition, debate, questioning, and even impeachment proceedings, and investigatory commissions incorporate this rule of deliberative rationality that majoritarian decisions are temporarily agreed-upon conclusions, the claim to rationality and validity of which can be publicly reexamined. This deliberative mode of democracy is proceduranst in that it emphasizes first and foremost certain institutional procedures and practices for attaining decisions on matters that would be binding on all. Three additional points are worthy of note with respect to such a conception of democracy: first, I proceed from the assumption of value pluralism. #RandolphHarris 8 of 25

Disagreement about the highest goods of human existence and the proper conduct of a morally righteous life are a fundamental feature of our modern value-universe since the end of natural law cosmologies in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and the eventual separation of church and state. The challenge to democratic rationality is to arrive at acceptable formulations of the common good despite this inevitable value-pluralism. We cannot resolve conflicts among value systems and visions of the good by reestablishing a strong unified moral and religious code without forsaking fundamental liberties. Agreements in societies living with value pluralism are to be sought for not at the level of substantive beliefs but at that of procedures, processes, and practices for attaining and revising beliefs. Proceduralism is a rational answer to persisting values conflicts at the substantive level. Second, the deliberative model of democracy proceeds not only from a conflict of values but also from a conflict of interests in social life. Social life necessitates both conflict of interests and cooperation. Democratic procedures have to convince, even under conditions when one’s interests as an individual or as a group are negatively affected, that the conditions of mutual cooperation are still legitimate. Procedures can be regarded as methods for articulating, sifting through and weighing conflicting interests. #RandolphHarris 9 of 25

The more conflicts of interests there are the more it is important to have procedural solutions of conflict adjudication through which parties whose interests are negatively affected can find recourse to other methods of the articulation and representation of their grievances. Proceduralist models of democracy allow the articulation of conflicts of interests under conditions of social cooperation mutually acceptable at all. Finally, any proceduralist and deliberative model of democracy is prima facie open to the argument, that no modern society can organize its affairs along the fiction of a mass assembly carrying out its deliberations in public and collectively. Here more than an issue of size is at stake. The argument that there may be an invisible limit to the size of a deliberative body that, when crossed, affects the nature of the reasoning process is undoubtedly true. Nonetheless the reason why a deliberative and proceduralist model of democracy does not need to operate with the fiction of a general deliberative assembly is that the procedural specifications of this model privilege a plurality of modes of association in which all affected can have the right to articulate their point of view. These can range from political parties, to citizens’ initiatives, to social movements, to voluntary associations, to consciousness-raising groups, and the like. #RandolphHarris 10 of 25

It is through the interlocking net of these multiple forms of associations, networks, and organizations that an anonymous “public conversation” results. It is central to the model of deliberative democracy that it privileges such a public sphere of mutually interlocking and overlapping networks and associations of deliberation, contestation, and argumentation. The fiction of a general deliberative assembly in which the untied people expressed their will belongs to the early history of democratic theory; today our guiding model has to be that of a medium of loosely associated, multiple foci of opinion formation and dissemination which affect one another in free and spontaneous processes of communication. Such a strong model of deliberative democracy is subject to three different kinds of criticism; first, liberal theorists will express concerns that such a strong model would lead to the corrosion of individual liberties and may in fact destabilize the rule of law. In one’s earlier work, Bruce Ackerman had formulated a theory of “conversational neutrality” to voice some of these concerns. Stephen Holmes has defended the plausibility of certain “gag rules” on public conversation. #RandolphHarris 11 of 25

Second, feminist theorists are skeptical about this model, because they see it as privileging a certain mode of discourse at the cost of silencing others: this is the rationalist, male, univocal, hegemonic discourse of transparent polity that disregards the emotions, polyvocity, multiplicity, and differences in the articulation of the voice of the public. Those who are sufficiently sensitive feel, when they spend a short time with one who has learned to live with God, a large relief from all their ancient burden of anxieties and difficulties and darkness for a while. This effect is so extraordinary, its exalted peace so glowing, that although it passes away its memory will never pass away. One who arrives at this stage becomes so wise and understanding, so strong and dependable, so kind and calm, that those who seek to foster these qualities within their own selves will receive from one’s work—sometimes from one’s mere presence—a powerful impetus to their progress. They will catch fire from one’s touch, as it were, and find a little easier of accomplishment the fulfilment of these aspirations. And those who are able to share in one’s effort to serve, to collaborate with one’s selfless work for the loftier ad more mysterious qualities which pertain to the quest of God: in the paradox of dynamic stillness, inspired action, and sublime prayers. #RandolphHarris 12 of 25

Yet one accepts worship from nobody as one oneself worships none. For one will not degrade oneself into such materiality nor permit others so to degrade themselves through their own superstition or someone else’s exploitation. One’s thoughts are permeated with unusual energy, and strange intensity, so that sensitive persons feel its atmosphere when in one’s presence or react quickly to its spoken an written expression when not. An individual realized that in one’s personal relationships one showed profound irritation in response to any claim the partner made upon him. Even the most legitimate requests were regarded as coercion and the most merited criticisms as insults. At the same time one felt free to demand exclusive devotion and to express one’s own criticisms quite frankly. One realized, in other words, that one accorded oneself every privilege while denying the partner any. It became clear to one that this attitude was bound to mar, if not destroy, one’s friendships as well as one’s marriage. Up to this point one had been very active and productive in one’s analytical work. However, the session after one became aware of the consequences of one’s attitude was pervaded by silence; the individual was mildly depressed and anxious. The few associations that did appear pointed to a strong tendency to withdraw, which was in decided contrast to one’s eagerness in previous hours to establish a good relationship with women. #RandolphHarris 13 of 25

The impulse to withdraw was an expression of how intolerable the prospect of mutuality was to one: one accepted the idea of equality of rights in theory, but in practice one rejected it. While one’s depression was a reaction to finding oneself in an unsolvable dilemma, the tendency to withdraw meant one was groping for a solution. When one recognized the futility of withdrawing, and saw that there was no way out but to change his attitude, he became interested in the question of why mutuality was so unacceptable to one. The associations that appeared immediately thereafter indicated that emotionally he saw only the alternative of having all rights or no rights whatever. He voiced apprehension that if he should concede any rights one would never be able to do what he wanted but would invariably have to comply with the wishes of others. This in turn opened up the whole field of his compliant and self-effacing trends which, although they had hitherto been touched upon, had never been seen in their full depth and significance. For a number of reasons one’s compliance and dependence were so great that he had had to build up the artificial defense of arrogating all rights exclusively to himself. To abandon the defense at a time when one’s compliance was still a stringent inner necessity would have meant to submerge oneself as an individual. #RandolphHarris 14 of 25

Before one could even consider a change in one’s arbitrary settlement the complaint trends had to be worked through. It is clear that we can never exhaust a problem through a single approach; it must be returned to again and again from various angles. This is because any single attitude springs from a variety of sources and assumes new functions in the course of the neurotic development. Thus, for instance, the attitude of placating and “putting up” with too much is originally part and parcel of the neurotic need for affection and must be tackled when that need is being dealt with. Its scrutiny must be resumed when the idealized image is in question. In that light placating will be seen as an expression of the individual’s notion that one is a saint. That it also involves a need to avoid friction will be understood when one’s detachment is under discussion. Again, the compulsive nature of the attitude will become clearer when the individual’s fear of others and one’s need to lean over backward from one’s sadistic impulses come into view. In other instances an individual’s sensitivity to coercion may be seen first as a defensive attitude stemming from one’s detachment, then as a projection of one’s own craving for power, and later perhaps as an expression of externalization, inner coercion, or other trends. #RandolphHarris 15 of 25

Any neurotic attitude or conflict that crystallizes during analysis must be understood in its relation to the personality as a whole. This is what is called working through. It involves the following steps: bringing to the individual’s awareness all the overt and hidden manifestations of the particular trend or conflict, helping one to recognize its compulsive nature, and enabling one to attain an appreciation both of its subjective value and its adverse consequences. The individual, when one discovers a neurotic peculiarity, tends to avoid examining it by immediately raising the question: “How did it come about?” Whether or not one is aware of doing so, one hopes to solve the particular problem by turning to its historical origin. The analyst must hold one back from this escape into the past and encouraged one to examine first what is involved—in other words, to become familiar with peculiarity itself. One must get to know the specific ways in which it manifests itself, the means one uses to cover it up, and one’s own attitudes toward it. If, for instance, the individual’s dread of being complaint has become clear, one must see the extent to which one resents, dreads, and despises in oneself any form of self-effacement. One must recognize the checks one has unconsciously instituted to the end of eliminating from one’s life all possibilities of compliance and everything involved in complaint tendencies. #RandolphHarris 16 of 25

One will understand, then, how attitudes apparently divergent all serve this one purpose; how one has numbered one’s sensitivity to others to the point of being unaware of their feelings, desires, or reactions; how this has made one highly inconsiderate; how one has chocked off any feeling of fondness for others as well as any desire to be liked by them; how ne disparages tender feelings and goodness in others; how one tends automatically to refuse requests; how in personal relationships one feels entitled to be moody, critical, and demanding but denies the partner any of these prerogatives. Or, if it is the patient’s feeling of omnipotence that has come into focus, it is not enough that one realizes that one has this feeling. One must see how from morning till night one sets impossible tasks for oneself; how, for instance, one thinks one should be able to write a brilliant paper on a complex subject at top speed; how one expects oneself to be spontaneous and scintillating in spite of one’s exhaustion; how in analysis one expects to solve a problem the moment one catches a glimpse of it. Next, the individual must recognize that one is driven to act in accordance with the particular trend, regardless of—and often contrary to—one’s own desires or best interests. One must realize that the compulsion operates indiscriminately, usually without reference to factual conditions. #RandolphHarris 17 of 25

One must see, for example, that one’s faultfinding attitude is turned towards friends and enemies alike; that one upbraids the partner no matter how the latter behaves: if the partner is amiable, one suspects one of feeling guilty about something; if one assets oneself, one is domineering; if one gives in, ne is a weakling; if one likes to be with one, one is too easily available; if one refuses anything, one is stingy, and so on. Or if the attitude under discussion is the individual’s uncertainty of being wanted or welcome, one must realize that the attitude persists despite all evidence to the contrary. Understanding the compulsive nature of a trend also involves recognizing reactions to its frustration. If, for instance, the trend that has emerged concerns the individual’s need for affection, one would have to see that one feels lost and frightened at any sign of rejection or diminished friendliness, no matter how trivial the sign or how little the other person means to one. While the first of these steps shows the individual the extent of one’s particular problem, the second impresses upon one’s mind the intensity of the forces behind it. Both arouse an interest in further scrutiny. Therefore, besides worshiping in stupendous truth, we worship “in spirit.” Notice the small “s,” referring to our human spirits, the inner person. True worship flows from the inside out. #RandolphHarris 18 of 25

Worship is not an external activity, but is of necessity first internal. Jesus warned hypocrites with the words of Isaiah: “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain,” reports Mark 7.6,7. Thus true worship must spring from within a human’s spirit, from the spontaneous affections of the heart—as it did so regularly from the heart of David. Psalm 130, a Psalm of Ascents, expresses the anticipation of one worshipping in spirit: “I wait for the Lord, my soul waits, and in his word I put my hope. My soul waits for the Lord more than watchmen wait for the morning, more than watchmen wait for the morning,” reports Psalm 130.5,6. “Wherefore, let us go to and labour with our might this last time that I shall prune my vineyard. Graft in the branches; begin at the last that they may be first, and that the first may be last, and dig about the trees, both old and young, the first and the last; and the last and the first, that all may be nourished once again for the last time. Wherefore, dig about them, and prune them, and dung them once more, for the last time, for the end draweth nigh. And if it be so that these grafts shall grow, then shall ye prepare the way for them, that they may grow. #RandolphHarris 19 of 25

“And as they begin to grow ye shall clear away the branches which bring forth bitter fruit, according to the strength of the good and the size thereof; and ye shall not clear away the bad thereof all at once, lest the roots thereof should be too strong for the graft, and the graft thereof shall perish, and I lose the trees of my vineyard. For it grieveth me that I should lose the trees of my vineyard; wherefore ye shall clear away the bad according as the good shall grow, that the root and the top may be equal in strength, until the good shall overcome the bad, and the bad be hewn down and cast into the fire, that they cumber not the ground of my vineyard; and this will I sweep away the bad out of my vineyard. And the branches of the natural tree will I graft in again into the natural tree; and the branches of the natural tree will I graft into the natural branches of the tree; and this will I bring them together again, that they shall bring forth the natural fruit, and they shall be one. And the bad shall be cast away, yea, even out of all the land of my vineyard; for behold, only this once will I prune my vineyard. And it came to pass that the Lord of the vineyard sent his servant; and the servant went and did as the Lord had commanded him, and brought other servants; and they were few. #RandolphHarris 20 of 25

“And the Lord of the vineyard said unto them: Go to, and labour in the vineyard, with your might. For behold, this is the last time that I shall nourish my vineyard; for the end is nigh at hand, and the season speedily cometh; and if ye labour with your might with me ye shall have joy in the fruit which I shall lay up unto myself against the time which will soon come. And it came to pass that the servants did go and labour with their mights; and the Lord of the vineyard labored also with them; and they did obey the commandments of the Lord of the vineyard in all things. And there began to be the natural fruit again in the vineyard; and the natural branches began to grow and thrive exceedingly; and the wild branches began to be plucked off and cast away; and they did keep the root and the top hereof equal, according to the strength thereof. And thus they labored, with all diligence, according to the commandments of the Lord of the vineyard, even until the bad had been cast away out of the vineyard, and the Lord had preserved unto himself that the trees had become again the natural fruit; and they became like unto one body; and the fruits were equal; and the Lord of the vineyard had preserved unto himself the natural fruit, which was most precious unto him from the beginning. #RandolphHarris 21 of 25

“And it came to pass that when the Lord of the vineyard saw that his fruit was good, and that his vineyard was no more corrupt, he called up his servants, and said unto them: Behold, for this last time have we nourished my vineyard; and thou beholdest that I have done according to my will; and I have preserved the natural fruit, that it is good, even like as it was in the beginning. And blessed art thou; for because ye have been diligent in labouring with me in my vineyard, and have kept my commandments, and have brought unto me again the natural fruit, that my vineyard is no more corrupted, and the bad is cast away, behold ye shall have joy with me because of the fruit of my vineyard. For behold, for a long time will I lay up of the fruit of my vineyard unto mine own self against the season, which seedily cometh; and for the last time have I nourished my vineyard, and pruned it, and dug about it, and dunged it; wherefore I will lay up unto mine own self of the fruit, for a long time, according to that which I have spoken. And when the time cometh that evil fruit shall again come into my vineyard, then will I cause the good and the bad to be gathered; and the good will I preserve unto myself, and the bad will I cast away into its own place. And then cometh the season and the end; and my vineyard will I cause to be burned with fire,” reports Jacob 5.62-77. #RandolphHarris 22 of 25

To ensure a righteous judgment, the Saviour’s atoning sacrifice will clear away the underbrush of ignorance and the painful thorns of hurt caused by others. The doctrine of Christ—which consists of the saving principles and ordinances of faith in Christ, repentance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end—is taught numerous times in all the scriptures of the Restoration but with particular power in the Book of Mormon. The doctrine begins with faith in Christ, and every one of its elements depends upon trust in His atoning sacrifice. The more we understand about the Saviour’s supernatural gift, the more we will come to know, in our minds, and in our hearts, the reality of the truths of the Book of Mormon and how it has the power to heal, comfort, restore, succor, strength console, and cheer our souls. God himself aoneth for the sins of the World, to bring about the plan of mercy, to appease the demands of justice, that God might be a perfect, just God, and a merciful God also. The thought that rescued Alma is this: Restoring what you cannot restore, healing the wound you cannot heal, fixing that which you broke and you cannot fix is the very purpose of the atonement of Christ. #RandolphHarris 23 of 25

The joyous truth on which Alma’s mind caught hold was not just that he himself could be made clean but also that those whom he had harmed could be healed and made whole. O God, Who Thy deep and ineffable love to humans hast condescended to the weakness of Thy servants, and made us partakers of this Heavenly Table; condemn not us sinners after the reception of Thy spotless Mysteries, but guard us, of Thy goodness, in the sanctification of the Holy Spirit; that being made holy, we may find our portion and inheritance with all the Saints who have pleased Thee from the beginning, in the light of Thy countenance, through the mercies of Thine Only-begotten son Our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ. O Lord, please help me never to expect any happiness from the World, but only in Thee. Let me not think that I shall be more happy by living to myself, for I can only be happy if employed for thee, and if I desire to live in this World only to do and suffer what Thou dost allot me. Teach me that if I do not live a life that satisfies Thee, I shall not live a life that will satisfy myself. Please help me to desire the spirit and temper of Angels who willingly come down to this lower World to perform Thy will, though their desires are Heavenly, and not set in the least upon Earthy things; then I shall be of that temper I ought to have. #RandolphHarris 24 of 25

Please help me not to think of living to Thee in my own strength, but always to look to and rely on Thee for assistance. Please teach me that there is no greater truth than this, that I can do nothing of myself. Lord, this is the life that no unconverted man can live, yet it is an end that every Godly soul presses after; let it be then my concern to devote myself and all to Thee. Please make me more fruitful and more spiritual, for barrenness is my daily affliction and load. How precious is time, and how painful to see it fly with little done to good purpose! I need Thy help: O may my soul sensibly depend upon Thee for all sanctification, and every accomplishment of Thy purposes for me, for the World, and for Thy kingdom. Please Lead us not into temptation, since we have been partakers of the holy Body and precious Blood. And we thank Thee that Thou hast made us meet communicants of the Mystery of glory and holiness which passeth all understanding. Please pour down on us O Lord, the Spirit of Thy love, that Thou mayest preserve in the same piety those whom Thou hast satisfied with the same Heavenly Bread. We have received, O Lord, the glorious Mysteries, and pray Thee by means of them to make us partakers of things Heavenly, while we are dwelling on the Earth; through Jesus Christ our Lord. #RandolphHarris 25 of 25

MILLS STATION AT CRESLEIGH RANCH

Rancho Cordova, CA |

Now Selling!

Mills Station at Cresleigh Ranch is Rancho Cordova’s newest home community! This charming neighborhood offers an array of home types with eye catching architecture styles such as Mission, Mid-Century Modern, California Modern, and Contemporary Farmhouse.

Located off Douglas Road and Rancho Cordova Parkway, the residents of Cresleigh Ranch will enjoy, being just minutes from shopping, dining, and entertainment, and quick access to Highway 50 and Grant Line Road providing a direct route into Folsom. Residents here also benefit from no HOA fees, two community parks and the benefits of being a part of the highly-rated Elk Grove Unified School District. https://cresleigh.com/mills-station/We give Thee thanks, O Lord our God, after having received Thy holy, spotless, immortal, and Heavenly Mysteries, which Thou hast given us for the benefit, sanctification, and healing of our souls and bodies. And we pray and beseech Thee, O good Lord, the Lover of Humans, to grant that the Communion of the holy Body and precious Blood of Thine Only-begotten Son may procure for us faith that needeth not to be ashamed, love without dissimulation, fulness of wisdom, healing of soul and body, repulse of every enemy, fulfilment of Thy commandments, an acceptable defense before the awful judgment-seat of Thy Christ. #CresleighHomes