The greatest mistake you can make in this life is to be continually fearing you will make one. While liberals criticize the model of deliberative democracy for possibly overextending itself and corroding the sphere of individual privacy, feminist theorists criticize this model for not extending itself broadly enough to be truly inclusive. The distinction between public and private as it appears in modern political theory expresses a will for homogeneity that necessitates the exclusion of many persons and groups, particularly women and radicalized groups culturally identified with the body, wildness and rationality. In conformity with the modern idea of normative reason, the idea of the public in modern political theory and practice designates a sphere of human existence in which citizens express their rationality and universality, abstracted from their particular situations and need, and opposed to feeling. Examination of the exclusionary and homogeneous ideal in modern political theory, however, shows that we cannot envision such renewal of public life as a recovery of Enlightenment ideals. Instead, we need to transform the distinction between public and private that does not correlate with an opposition between reason and affectively desire, or universal and particular. #RandolphHarris 1 of 25

In this cogent and penetrating feminist critique of the ideal of the impartial public applies to the model of deliberative democracy suggested in the preceding only in certain respects. Certainly, the model of a general deliberative assembly that governed our conceptions of the public sphere well into the twenty-first century was historically, socially, and culturally a space for male bodies. I mean this not only in a sense that only men were active citizens entitled to hold office and appear in public, but also in the sense that the institutional iconography of early democratic theory privileged the male mode of self-representation. Yet here we must distinguish between the institutional and the conceptual critique. There is a certain ambivalence in the feminist critique of such models of the public sphere and deliberative democracy. On the one hand, the critique appears to take democratic institutions at their principled best and to criticize their biased and restrictive implementations in practice; on the other hand, the feminist critique appears to aim at a rejection of the ideals of free public reason and impartiality altogether. The democratic public sphere appears to be essentially and not just accidentally masculinist. A normative theory of deliberative democracy requires a strong concept of the public sphere as its institutional correlate. #RandolphHarris 2 of 25

The public sphere replaces the model of the general deliberative assembly found in early democratic theory. In this context, it is important for feminist theorists to specify the level of their conceptual objection, and to differentiate among institutional and normative presuppositions. We do not reject the ideal of a public sphere, only its Enlightenment variety. Perhaps we should replace the ideal of the “civil public” with that of a heterogeneous public. There are a number of institutional measures that would guarantee and solidify group representation in such a public sphere. Yet wanting to retain the public sphere and according it a place in democratic theory is not compatible with the more radical critique of the ideal of impartial reason. We can distinguish between “deliberative” and “communicative” democracy on the grounds that most theories of deliberative democracy offer too narrow a conception of the democratic process because they continue to privilege an ideal of a common good in which the discussions participants are all supposed to leave behind their particular experience and interests. By contrast, we advocate a theory of communicative democracy according to which individuals would attend to one another’s differences in class, gender, race, religion, and so one. #RandolphHarris 3 of 25

Each social position has a partial perspective on the public that is does not abandon; but through the communicative process participants transcend and transform their initial situated knowledges. Instead of critical argumentation, such processes of communicative confrontation privilege modalities of communication like greeting, rhetoric, and storytelling. I think this distinction between deliberative and communicative democracy is more apparent than real. To sustain critique of the ideals of impartiality and objectivity, which we associate with the deliberative model, we must also be able to distinguish the kind of transformation and transcendence of partial perspectives that occurs in communicative democracy from the mutual agreement to be reached in process of deliberative democracy. Yet how can we distinguish between the emergence of common opinion among members of one group, if we do not apply to such processes of communications or deliberation some standards of fairness and impartiality  in  order to judge the manner in which opinions were allowed to be brought forth, groups were given chances to express their points of view, and the like? The model of communicative democracy, far from dispensing with the need for standards of impartiality and fairness, requires them to make sense of its own formulations. #RandolphHarris 4 of 25

Without some such standards, we could not differentiate the genuine transformation partial and situated perspectives from mere agreements of convenience or apparent unanimity reached under conditions of duress. With respects to modes of communication like greeting, rhetoric, and storytelling, I would say that each of these modes may have their place within the informally structed process of everyday communication among individuals who share a cultural and historical life World. However, it is neither necessary for the democratic theorist to try to formulize and institutionalize these aspects of communicative everyday competence, nor is it plausible—and this is the more important objection—to build an opposition between them and critical argumentation. Greeting, storytelling, and rhetoric, although they may be aspects of informal communication in our everyday life, cannot become the public language of institutions and legislatures in a democracy for the following reasons: to attain legitimacy, democratic institutions require the articulation of the bases of their actions and policies in discursive language that appeals to commonly shared and accepted public reasons. In constitutional democracies such public reasons take the form of general statements consonant with the rule of law. #RandolphHarris 5 of 25

The rule of law has a certain rhetoric structure of its own: it is general, applies to all members of a specified reference group on the basis of legitimate reasons. In our attempt to transform the language of the rule of law into a more partial, affective, and situated mode of communication would have the consequences of inducting arbitrariness, for all who can tell how far the power of a greeting can reach? It would further create capriciousness—what about those who simply cannot understand by story? It would limit rather than enhance social justice because rhetoric moves people and achieves results without having to render an account of the bases upon which it induces people to engage in certain courses of action rather than others. In short, some moral ideal of impartiality is a regulative principle that should govern not only our deliberations in public but also the articulation of reasons by public institutions. What is considered impartial has to be in the best interests of all equally. Without such a normative principle, neither the ideal of the rule of law can be sustained nor deliberative reasoning toward a common good occur. Some Enlightenment ideals are part of any conception of democratic legitimacy and the public sphere. #RandolphHarris 6 of 25

The point therefore is not rejection of the Enlightenment in toto but a critical renegotiation of its legacy. Expanding on the model of a heterogeneous, dispersed network of many publics, it is suggested how, in fact, once the unitary model of the public sphere is abandoned, women’s concerns, as well as those of other excluded groups, can be accommodated. Such a nonunitary and dispersed network of public can accommodate women’s desires for their own spaces, in their own terms. In such subaltern counter publics, the lines between the public and the private, for example, can be renegotiated, rethought, challenged, and reformulated. It is nonetheless a long step from the cultural and social rethinking and reformulation of such distinctions as between the public and the private to their implementation in legislation and governmental regulation. While sharing the concern of liberal theorists that the precipitous reformulation of such a divide may corrode individual liberties, we rightly point out that there is a distinction between opinion-making and policy-making public bodies, and that the same kinds of contrasts may not apply to each alike. Opinion-making publics, as found in social movements, for example, can lead us to recognizer and rethink very controversial issues about privacy, pleasures of the flesh, and intimacy. #RandolphHarris 7 of 25

However, this does not imply that the only or even most desirable consequence of such processes of public deliberation should be general legislation. Thus when conceived as an anonymous, plural, and multiple medium of communication and deliberation, the public sphere need not homogenize and repress difference. Heterogeneity, otherness, and difference can find expression in the multiple associations, networks, and citizens’ forums, all of which constitute public life under late capitalism. My goal in this essay has been to outline a deliberative model of democracy that incorporates features of practical rationality. Central to practical rationality is the possibility of free public deliberation about matters of mutual concern to all. The discourse model of ethics and politics suggest a procedure for such free public deliberation among all concerned. Such processes of public deliberation have a claim to rationality because they increase and make available necessary information, because they allow the expression of arguments in the light of which opinions and beliefs need to be revised, and because they lead to the formation of conclusions that can be challenged publicly for good reasons. Furthermore, such procedures allow self-referential critique of their own uses and abuses. #RandolphHarris 8 of 25

One who takes up the vocation of spiritual service should do so only if one be sufficiently prepared for it morally—only if one be destitute of ambitions and greeds, detached from people and the thought of people, isolated from personal motivations, liberated from the lower emotions. A master of issues no command and requires no obedience. Others may do so but not one. One will bear no grudge if one’s advice is rejected. The self-actualized who performs the enlightened potentate to one’s court disciples may be unconsciously playing up to their desires or expectations but also playing down to one’s own desire for power. It may help to keep them in juvenile dependence on one but also keep one within the ego and thus reduce one’s capacity to serve them. Even if one were not ethically more sensitive and hence more scrupulous than most people, one’s own spiritual dignity and personal self-respect would alone forbid one’s taking advantage of the credulous, the inexperienced, or the unbalanced. The spiritual guide who is not oneself free from passion is a dangerous guide for those who are still struggling in the grip of passion. The teacher who has not utterly subdued personal egoism is unfit to assist those who seek liberation from it. One should learn to solve the problems of other people. The true teacher identifies oneself with one’s student and does not sit on a Himalayan height of self-esteem. #RandolphHarris 9 of 25

The chief institutional correlate of such a model of deliberative democracy is a multiple, anonymous, heterogenous network of many public and public conversations. In other domains of social life as well, the model of deliberative democracy based on the centrality of public deliberation can inspire the proliferation of many institutional designs. Usually the sufferings entailed in these tendencies toward weakness yield no conscious satisfaction but, on the contrary, regardless of the purpose they serve, are definitely part of the neurotic’s general awareness of misery. Nevertheless these tendencies aim at a satisfaction, even when they do not, or at least apparently do not, reach it. Occasionally this aim can be observed and sometimes it even becomes apparent that the goal of satisfaction has been achieved. An individual who went to visit some friends living in the country felt disappointed that no one met her at the station and that some of her friends were not at home when she arrived. Thus far, she said, the experience was wholly painful. However, then she felt herself sliding into a feeling of being utterly desolate and forlorn, a feeling which, son afterwards, she recognized as entirely disproportionate to the provocation. This submergence in misery not only lulled the pain but was felt as positively pleasurable. #RandolphHarris 10 of 25

The achievement of satisfaction is much more frequent and more obvious in fantasies involving pleasures of the flesh and perversions of a masochistic character, such as fantasies of being assaulted, beaten, humiliated, enslaved, or their actual enactment. In fact they are only another manifestation of this same general inclination toward weakness. The obtaining of satisfaction by submersion in misery is an expression of the general principle of finding satisfaction by losing the self in something greater, by dissolving the individuality, by getting rid of the self with its doubts, conflicts, pains, limitations and isolation. This is called liberation from the principium individuationis. It is what is meant by the Dionysian tendency and is considered one of the basic strivings in human beings, as opposed to what is called the Apollonian tendency, which works toward an active molding and mastering of life. Dionysian trends have attempts to induce ecstatic experience, and these tendencies are widespread among the various cultures, and they manifold their expressions. The term “Dionysian” is taken from the Dionysus cults in Greece. These, as well as the earlier cults of Thracians, had as their aim the extreme stimulations of all feelings up to visionary states. This means of producing ecstatic states were music, uniform rhythm of flutes, raving dances at night, intoxicating drinks and pleasures of the flesh abandon, all working up to a seething excitement and ecstasy. (The term ecstasy means literally being outside or beside oneself.) #RandolphHarris 11 of 25

All over the World there are customs and cults following the same principle: in groups abandonment in festivals and religious ecstasy, and individuals, oblivion in drugs. Pain also plays a role in producing the Dionysian condition. In some Plains India tribes visions are induced by fasting, cutting off a piece of flesh, being tied in a painful position. In the Sun Dances, one of the most important ceremonies of the Plains Indians, physical torture was a very common means of stimulating ecstatic experiences. The Flagellantes in the Middle Ages used beatings to produce ecstasy. The Penitentes in New Mexico used thorns, beatings, the carrying of heavy loads. Though these cultural expressions of Dionysian tendencies are far from being patterned experience in our culture, they are not entirely alien to us. To some degree all of us know the satisfaction derived from losing ourselves. We feel it in the process of falling asleep after a physical or mental strain or of going into narcosis. The same effect can be induced by alcohol. In the use of alcohol certainly losing inhibitions is one of the factors involved, and lulling grief and anxiety is another, but here too the ultimate satisfaction aimed at is the satisfaction of oblivion and abandon. #RandolphHarris 12 of 25

And there are few persons who do not know the satisfaction of losing themselves in some great feeling, whether it be love, nature, music, enthusiasm for a cause or pleasures of the flesh abandon. How can we account for the apparent universality of these strivings? In spite of all the happiness life can afford, it is at the same time full of inescapable tragedy. Even if there is no particular sufferings, there still remain the facts of old age, sickness, and death; in still more general terms, the fact remains inherent in human life that the individual is limited and isolated—limited in what one can understand, achieve, or enjoy, isolated because one is a unique entity, separate from one’s fellow beings and from surrounding nature. In fact, it is this individual limitation and isolation which mist of the cultural trends toward oblivion and abandon tend to overcome. The most poignant and beautiful expression of this striving is found in the Upanishad, in the picture of rivers which flow and, disappearing into the ocean, lose name and shape. By dissolving the self in something greater, by becoming part of a greater entity, the individual overcomes to a certain extent one’s limitations; as it is expressed in the Upanishad, “By vanishing to nothing, we become part of the creative principle of the Universe.” This seems to be the great consolation and gratification which religion has to offer human beings; by losing themselves they can become at one with God or nature. #RandolphHarris 13 of 25

The same satisfaction can be achieved by devotion to a great cause; by surrendering to the self to a cause we feel at one with a greater whole. In our culture we are more aware of the opposite attitude toward the self, the attitude that emphasizes and highly values the particularities and uniqueness of individuality. Humans in our culture feels strongly that one’s own self is a separate unity, distinguished from or opposite to the World outside. Not only does one insist on this individuality but one derives a great deal of satisfaction from it; one finds happiness in developing one’s special potentialities, mastering oneself and the World in active conquest, being constructive and doing creative work. Of this ideal of personal development Goethe has said, “Hoechstes Glueck der Menschenkinder ist doch die Persoenlichkeit.” However, the opposite tendency that we have discussed—the tendency to break through the shell individuality and be rid of its limitations and isolation—is an equally deep-rooted human attitude, and is also pregnant with potential satisfaction. Neither of these tendencies is itself pathological; both the preservation and development of individuality and the sacrifice of individuality are legitimate goals in the solution of human problems. #RandolphHarris 14 of 25

Although these proposed philosophies of life, these recipes of being, are presented as though from a stigmatized individual’s personal point of view, on analysis it is apparent that something else informs them. This something else is groups, in the broad sense of like-situated individuals, and this is only to be expected, since what an individual is, or could be, derives from the place of this kind in the social structure. One of these groups is the aggregate formed by the individual’s fellow-sufferers. The spokesperson of this group claim that the individual’s real group, the one to which one naturally belongs, is this group. All the other categories and groups to which the individual necessarily also belongs are implicitly considered to be not one’s real ones; one is no really one of them. The individual’s real group, then, is the aggregate of persons who are likely to have to suffer the same deprivation as one suffers because of having the same stigma; one’s real “group,” in fact, is the category which can serve as one’s discrediting. The character these spokespersons allow the individual is generated by the relation one has to those of one’s own kind. If one turns to one’s group, one is loyal and authentic; if one turns away, one is craven and a fool. #RandolphHarris 15 of 25

The admonition that the stigmatized individual should be loyal to one’s group is voiced by professional scientists, too. For example, Riesman, in “Marginality, Conformity, and Insight,” Phylon, Third Quarter, 1935, 251-252, in describing how a sociologist, or an American, or a professor may each be seduced into accepting compliments regarding one’s self that are an insult to one’s group, adds this story: “I myself recall that I once told a woman lawyer that she was not as strident and aggressive as other Portias I had known, and I regret that she took this as a compliment and consented to the betrayal of her female colleagues of the bar. Here, surely, is a clear illustration of a basic sociological them: the nature of an individual, as one oneself as we impute it to one, if generated by the nature of one’s group affiliations. Sociologically, it should be clear that in finding oneself in different social situations, the individual will find oneself facing different claims as to which of one’s many groups is one’s real one. Other matter are less clear. Why, for example, should individuals who have already paid a considerable price for their stigma be told not to pass; perhaps according to the rule that the less you have had the less you should try to obtains? #RandolphHarris 16 of 25

 And if derogation of those with a particular stigma is bad in the present and bad for the future, why should those who have the stigma, more so than those who do not, be given the responsibility of presenting and enforcing a fair-minded stand and improving the lot of the category as a whole? One answer, of course is that those with the stigma should “know better,” thus assuming an interesting relation between knowledge and morality. A better answer, perhaps, is that those with a particular stigma are often considered by themselves and by normals to be linked together through space and time into a single community that should be supported by its members. As might be expected, professionals who take an in-group standpoint may advocate a militant and chauvinistic line—even to the extent of favouring a secessionist ideology. Taking this tack, the stigmatized individual in mixed contacts will give praise to the assumed special values and contributions of one’s kind. One may also flaunt some stereotypical attributes which one could easily cover; thus, one finds second generations Jews who aggressively interlard their speech with Jewish aggressively interlard their speech with Jewish idiom and accent, and the militant homosexual who are patriotically swish in public places. #RandolphHarris 17 of 25

 The stigmatized individual may also openly question the half-concealed disapproval with which normals treat one, and wait to “fault” the self-appointed wise, that is, continue to examine the other’s actions and words until some fugitive sign is obtained that their show of accepting one is only a show. The problems associated with militancy are well known. When the ultimate political objective is to remove stigma from the differentness, the individual may find that one’s very efforts can politicize one’s own life, rendering it even more different from the normal life initially denied one—even though the next generation of one’s fellow may greatly profit from one’s efforts by being more accepted. Further, in drawing attention to the situation of one’s own kind one is in some respects consolidating a public image of one’s differentness as a real thing and of one’s fellow-stigmatized as constituting a real group. On the other hand, if one seeks some kind of separateness, not assimilation, one may find that one is necessarily presenting one’s militant efforts in the language and style of one’s enemies. Moreover, the pleas one presents, the plight one reviews, the strategies one advocates, are all part of an idiom of expression and feeling that belongs to the whole society. #RandolphHarris 18 of 25

One’s disdain for a society that rejects one can be understood only in terms of that society’s conception of pride, dignity, and independence. In short, unless there is some alien culture on which to fall back, the more one separates oneself structurally from the normals, the more likely one may become culturally. “Behold, it came to pass that I, Omni, being commanded by my father, Jarom, that I should write somewhat upon these plates, to preserve our genealogy—wherefore, in my days, I would that ye should know that I fought much with the sword to preserve my people, the Nephites, from falling into the hands of their enemies, the Lamanites. However, behold, I of myself am a wicked man, and I have not kept the statues and the commandments of the Lord as I ought to have done. And it came to pass that two hundred and seventy and six years had passed away, and we had many seasons of peace; and we had many seasons of serious war and bloodshed. Yea, and in fine, two hundred and eighty and two years had passes away, and I had kept these plates according to the commandments of my fathers; and I conferred them upon my son Amaron. And I make an end. And now I, Amaron, write the things whatsoever I write, which are few, in the book of my father. Behold, it came to pass that three hundred and twenty years had passed away, and the more wicked part of the Nephites were destroyed. #RandolphHarris 19 of 25

“For the Lord would not suffer, after he had led them out of the land of Jerusalem and kept and preserved the from falling into the hands of their enemies, yea, he would not suffer that the words should not be verified, which he spake unto our fathers, saying that: Inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall not prosper in the land. Wherefore, the Lord did visit them in great judgment; nevertheless, he did spare the righteous that they should not perish, butt did deliver them out of the hands of their enemies. And it came to pass that I did deliver the plates unto my brother Chemish. Now, I Chemish, write what few things I write, in the same book with my brother; for behold, I saw the last which he wrote, that he wrote it with his own hand; and he wrote it in the day that he delivered them unto me. And after this manner we keep the records, for it is according to the commandments of our fathers. And I make an end. Behold, I, Abinadom, am the son of Chemish. Behold, it came to pass that I saw much war and contention between my people, the Nephites, and the Lamanites; and I, with my own sword, have taken the lives of many of the Lamanites in defense of my brethren. And behold, the record of this people is engraven upon plates which is had by the kinds, according to the generations; and I know of no revelation save that which has been written, neither prophecy; wherefore, that which is sufficient is written. And I make an end. #RandolphHarris 20 of 25

“Behold, I am Amaleki, the son of Abinadom. Behold, I will speak unto you somewhat concerning Mosiah, who was made king over the land of Zarahemla; for behold, he being warned of the Lord that he should fled out of the land of Nephi, and as many would hearken unto the voice of the Lord should also depart out of the land with him, into the wilderness—and it came to pass that he did according as the Lord had commanded him. And they departed out of the land into the wilderness, as many as would hearken unto the voice of the Lord; and they were led by many preachings and prophesyings. And they were admonished continually by the word of God; and they were led by the power of his arm, through the wilderness until they came down into the land which is called the and of Zarahemla. And they discovered a people, who were called the people of Zarahemla. Now, there was great rejoicing among the people of Zarahemla; and also Zarahemla did rejoice exceedingly, because the Lord had sent the people of Mosiah with the plates of brass which contained the record of the Jews. Behold, it came to pass that Mosiah discovered them; and they had dwelt there from that time forth. And at the time that Mosiah discovered them, they had become exceedingly numerous. #RandolphHarris 21 of 25

“Nevertheless, they had had many wars and serious contentions, and had fallen by the sword from time to time; and their language had become corrupted; and they had brought no records with them; and they denied the being of their Creator; and Mosiah, nor the people of Mosiah, could understand them. However, it came to pass that Mosiah caused that they should be taught in his language. And it came to pass that after they were taught in the language of Mosiah, Zarahemla gave a genealogy of his fathers, according to his memory; and they are written, but not in these plates. And it came to pass that the people of Zarahemla, and of Mosiah, did unite together; and Mosiah was appointed to be their king. And it came to pass in the days of Mosiah, there was a large stone brought unto him with engravings on it; and he did interpret the engravings by the gift and power of God. And they gave an account of one Coriantumr, and the slain of his people. And Coriantumr was discovered by the people of Zarahemla; and he dwelt with them for the space of nine moons. It also spake a few words concerning his fathers. And his first parent came out from the tower, at the time of the Lord confounded the language of the people; and the severity of the Lord fell upon them according to his judgments, which are just; and their bones lay scattered in the land northward. Before, I, Amaleki, was born inn the days of Mosiah; and I have lived to see his death; and Benjamin, his son, reigneth in his stead. #RandolphHarris 22 of 25

“And behold, I have seen, in the days of king Benjamin, a serious war and much bloodshed between the Nephites and the Lamanites. However, behold, the Nephites did obtain much advantage over them; yea, insomuch that king Benjamin did drive them out of the land of Zarahemla. And it came to pass that I began to be old; and, having no seed, and knowing king Benjamin to be a just man before the Lord, wherefore, I shall deliver up these plates unto him, exhorting all humans to come unto God, the Holy One of Israel, and believe in prophesying, and in revelations, and in the ministering of Angels, and in the gift of speaking with tongues, and in the gift of interpreting languages, and in all things which is good save it comes from the Lord: and that which is evil cometh from the devil. And now, my beloved brethren, I would that ye should come unto Christ, who is the Holy One of Israel, and partake of his salvation, and the power of his redemption. Yea, come unto him, and offer your whole souls as an offering unto him, and continue in fasting and praying, and endure to the end; and as the Lord liveth ye will be saved. And now I would speak somewhat concerning a certain number who were desirous to possess the land of their inheritance. Wherefore, they went up into the wilderness. #RandolphHarris 23 of 25

“And their leader being a strong and mighty man, and a stiffnecked man, wherefore he caused a contention among them; and they were all slain, save fifty, in the wilderness, and they returned again to the land of Zarahemla. And it came to pass that they also took others to a considerable number, and took their journey again into the wilderness. And I, Amaleki, had a brother, who also went with them; and I have not since known concerning them. And I am about to lie down in my grace; and these plates are full. And I make an end of my speaking,” reports Omni 1.1-30. Heavenly Father, Thou hast led me singing to the cross where I fling down all my burdens and see them vanish, where my mountains of guilt are levelled to a plain, where my sins disappear, though they are the greatest that exist, and are more in number than the grains of fine sand; for there is power in the blood of Calvary to destroy sins more than can be counted even by one from the choir of Heaven. Thou hast given me a hill-side spring that washes clear and white, and I go as a sinner to its waters, bathing without hinderance in its crystal streams. At the cross there is free forgiveness for poor and meek ones, and ample blessings that last forever; the blood of the Lamb is like a great river of infinite grace with never any diminishing of its fullness as thirsty ones without number drink of it. #RandolphHarris 24 of 25

O Lord, forever will Thy free forgiveness live that was gained on the mount of blood; in the midst of a World of pain it is a subject for praise in every place a song on Earth, an anthem in Heaven, its love and virtue knowing no end. I have a longing for the World above where multitudes sing the great song, for my soul was never created to love the dust of Earth. Though here my spiritual state is frail and poor, I shall go on singing Calvary’s anthem. May I always know that a clean heart full of goodness is more beautiful than the lily, that only a clean heart can sing by night and by day, that such a heart is mine when I abide at Calvary. Please Visit, we beseech Thee, O Lord, Thy family, and guard with watchful tenderness the hearts which have been hallowed by scared Mysteries; that as by Thy mercy they receive the healings Gifts of eternal salvation, they may retain them by Thy protecting power; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Please defend, O Lord, with Thy protection those whom Thou satisfies with Heavenly Gifts; that being set free from all things hurtful, we may press onwards with our whole heart to the salvation which cometh from Thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. 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

This week’s Cresleigh Blog welcomes you to #MillsStation at #CresleighRanch! Located in the heart of Rancho Cordova, this community features modern homes built for making memories. 😍 Check it out at the link in bio! https://www.instagram.com/p/CBWN3lLgHaX/

#CresleighHomes

We beseech Thee, O Lord, that the solemn reception of Thy Sacrament may cleanse us from all our old sins, and change us into new creatures; though Jesus Christ our Lord. https://cresleigh.com/mills-station/residence-4/