It would help, but it wouldn’t be nearly enough as I am committed to a long-form Inspirations amendment. See: Amendment 51 to Article II - Proposed by Janet Leavens - #34 by Janet
Comments 1, 4, 10, 12, 28 and 33 from the co-editors especially explain our process and why we felt a more detailed listing and balancing of UU sources of inspirations is important.
Fair enough! I’m still getting up to speed on all the options.
I support this amendment!
I like this amendment.
This seems to put together the above comments and considerations.
By listing out some, we omit many. Acknowledging what was and is, to open ourselves forward we recognize that we cannot know all the sources. Please consider this so we remain open to paths, focused on the stated intention.
Would you accept a friendly amendment to insert the word “artistic” before “and scientific”?
Creative arts (poetry music, visual arts etc.) have their own meaning and ability to inform our spirituality.
I like Leavens’ amendment AND I also can get behind supporting this abbreviated and inclusive version as well. So I most likely will vote for both and see where the will of the body takes us. 
Over emphasis on direct experience. We’re trying to not have a list. Object to “primary”.
I do VERY MUCH LIKE the edits to the last sentence. It adds experiences and it gentles the religious ancestry language that some feel very uncomfortable with. I am very grateful for my own religious ancestry.
Exactly my take though I object in primary being used but I’m thinking yes on 5 and 51 and see how things look in the Fall with the new new draft if A2 passes this weekend.
I fully support the return of direct experience and wonder and awe to the Article.
I agree that the word “a primary” should be deleted. It is too easily misinterpreted as supreme (as opposed to first/innate).
This proposed sentence, however, is presumptuous: These experiences open our hearts, renew our spirits, and transform our lives..
We cannot presume to describe the effect of those experiences on a person. I hope this sentence is deleted.
I like much of this amendment and regret that my voting it down will leave no alternative in its place that acknowledges mystery and wonder. Thank you for submitting this Matthew. However, I will vote against because I believe calling it a primary source is not inclusive of all people’s experience. I hope the Commission will consider Amendment 34 instead, which is not on the priority list at this time.
Remember it won’t be entered word for word as written. Amendments will be incorporated by the A2 study commission using their discernment and judgement. I will vote for amendments whose ideas I want to see incorporated, understanding that amendments are not in their final form.
I hope that this is true.
If it is true, I wish it was clearly stated somewhere!
I feel excluded by this proposal. As an atheist/humanist, I am not motivated by “transcending mystery.” I dislike it. For me, a mystery is not a religious inspiration–rather it is a challenge, something to be solved by the glory of the scientific method. I acknowledge that others feel mystery and wonder as a source of their faith, but the source of my faith is succinctly included in the Leavins amendment—humanism and science. The Leavens amendment also shows “direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder” as a source, so it is inclusive. Include EVERYONE’s inspiration, including mine. Vote against the Johnson amendment and for the Leavins amendment.
I just heard a CON speaker who suggested that “direct experience” privileges one of the 6 sources. This may be true the way it is currently written.
However, the UNamended version practically EXCLUDES direct experience!!!
I believe in the importance of direct experiences of MANY things, not just the transcendent.
Neither the original nor Amendment 5 address this. That is why I support a mashup of 5 and 34 above.
I support this amendment. For me, the most important piece of this is the direct experience, moreso than the “transcending msytery and wonder” though I interpret mystery there to be used not because the transcendent is necessarily mysterious or unintelligible (though I personally find it often is), but because each of us seem to have such different interpretations and understandings it seems more inclusive to call it mystery. But that aside, this is a place where I think individual experience is actually important to be lifted up – because we value freedom and belief and because we value each individuals inherent dignity and worthiness, we affirm that each person has a direct experience of… the world - the universe – the ground of being – the cosmos – the spirit of life – whatever you may call it, the important thing is we each have, as individuals, direct experiences and relationship to it. – It is not the case that we think “Truth-with-a-capital-T” is mediated by someone else, or by a particular group, or by a particular sacred text, or by a particular method of inquiry, or by anything else – though each of these can be helpful partners in the process. But like Emerson encouraged-- let us each, atheist, theist, humanist, pagan, buddhist, etc, etc, let us each dare to love [Truth] without mediator of veil! Anyway, that’s how I interpret this amendment (which i helped to craft) and why I support it.
As far as I know at this point amendment 34 is not on the list of amendments to be voted on. The choice is to vote for or against #5 and hope that the Board or Commission will take into account the statements on this page, which we were encouraged to use for comments. I plan to vote against this because I don’t agree with it as I see it worded now.
I’m taking the same approach Ed (not voting to approve this amendment as currently worded), and trust that the Commission will look at other possibilities as they continue their work, perhaps considering the combo of #5 and #34 suggested - or some other version of the wording that reflects the suggestions and concerns voiced here.
You’re right, 34 is not on the list.
However I hope that some of its language might be considered by the Commission as they discern how to address some of the CONS for 5.