I Like My Crow Medium Rare

[Stargazer]

We will always welcome civil non-believers here. You are looking like a good addition.

Well, he's not all that new... May 2008, and yet so few posts. You must be busy, Craig Paxton!

[ERayR]

To clarify...What I find entertaining is the testing of my own beliefs by jousting with a firm believer. To flesh out knowledge one must be willing to throw ones beliefs on the altar of examination to see if they can stand up to scrutiny. You will note that I also said that I respect Deborah's right to her beliefs. And as evidenced by my apology, I am willing to reject a belief IF I find that it does not stand up to that scrutiny. Which is also why I am no longer a believer in all things Mormon...for me and for me alone...when tested my belief’s did not stand up to critical examination. I say that knowing full well that others have also subjected their LDS faith and been able to reconcile it and perhaps even strengthen it ...but for me that was not the result.

It is never my intent to disparage anyone’s beliefs...if that is somehow how my posts have been interpreted...forgive me that was not my intent.

If you say you intended no disrespect I will acccept you at your word. It is just that my many years of experience when someone finds anothers deep held beliefs entertaining disrespect and trivialization and disregard follow close behind.

As for standing up to scrutiny, it depends on who you let frame the evidence and standards. If you scrutinize strawmen evidence your outcome will be skewed.

Again I accept you at your word.

[Craig Paxton]

Now that your concerns have been resolved, let me be the first to welcome you back!

Bernard

LOL....if it were only that easy...

[Craig Paxton]

If you say you intended no disrespect I will acccept you at your word. It is just that my many years of experience when someone finds anothers deep held beliefs entertaining disrespect and trivialization and disregard follow close behind.

Yes...I would have to agree with you...I often find my beliefs being trivialized and disregarded all the time from true believers

As for standing up to scrutiny, it depends on who you let frame the evidence and standards. If you scrutinize strawmen evidence your outcome will be skewed.

Again I accept you at your word.

Genius! You're using a stawman argument to suggest that my concerns were derived from strawmen arguments. Brilliant!

[Scott Lloyd]

I've been banned from my own thread for reasons that still are unclear to me...But I want to eat my crow and acknowledge that I was too fast to conclude that there was no truth behind the Milk Strippings story. Although I still contend that apostacy is much more complicated than presented and taught...it appears that I was wrong in thnking that the milk strippings story was an invention of George A Smith...I'm here to eat my crow/hat... whatever you place on my plate.

I wish to apologize to 'Deborah'...for me its mere entertainment to joust with you...its never anything personal and although we may disagree on many things...I do respect your right to your beliefs. I want to thank Okrahomer for his/her links. I do feel that although not conclusive...there is enough information to concude that there is truth behind the story. I would prefer a link to the actual church court records, but you have made your point and I acknowledge that on this subject...there is enough evidence to suggest that there is truth in the Milk Strippings story. My sincere apology to all concerned. Consider it a good day for defenders of the church...the evil apostate has been vanquished. Drat...foiled again...

Three things:

1. Your apology is commendable. It takes courage and class to admit error.

2. I said on the other thread and I'll say it here: The lack of extant documentation and your own obvious personal dislike for George A. Smith are hardly justification for concluding the incident never happened and the man was guilty of a wholesale lie. It happens that records get lost or destroyed, and given the fact that the Church was under constant pressure of violence and persecution, was frequently on the move in the early days to ensure its own survival — and the fact that the incident in question occurred more than a century-and-a-half ago — makes that likelihood more than plausible, assuming there were records kept in the first place. Elder Smith's own account from personal knowledge, he having been a close associate and confidant of Church leaders at the time, should be regarded as evidence in and of itself.

3. Apostasy is spelled with an s, not a c.

[Chris Smith]

Great post, urroner. I think it highlights three important truths:

1) People's motives are complicated, and actions can rarely be traced to just one causal factor. Paradigm shifts usually happen when cognitive dissonance reaches a critical mass. It's the death of a thousand cuts. If you reduce a person's decision to just one of those cuts-- perhaps the one that finally pushed them over the edge-- then you'll end up creating a caricature of their motives. And, frankly, the complexity of our motives means that even the person who experienced the shift may be completely unable to articulate why it happened.

2) Much of what goes on in our heads is simply beyond our control. If there's anything that modern science has taught us, it's that our thought processes are largely determined by factors in the physical world, whether those are chemicals in the brain or environmental factors. By removing a certain portion of your brain, I can turn you into a bad person. By cutting the connections between the two hemispheres of your brain, I can turn you into essentially two separate people inhabiting the same body. And even for perfectly healthy people, I can make some fairly reliable predictions about ideology and behavior if I have some basic demographic information about them, such as race, income, and level of education.

3) I'm reminded of the old writer's dictum that everyone is the hero of his own story. Even if you disapprove of the consequences of someone's actions, you have to realize that they will usually think of themselves as having noble motives. For example, I disapprove of the demonization of apostates, but I also realize that those who engage in this sort of activity don't think of it as demonization, at all. In their minds, they are stating simple facts in defense of the simple truth. Well, it's the same for some apostates. In their minds, the truth is simple, and the only reason you all can't see it is because you've been brainwashed by an exploitative cult. These beliefs are sincere, well-meaning, and-- from the perspectives of those who hold them-- perfectly warranted by their observations of the world.

We'd all do well to make more of an effort to see things from other people's point of view, I think. And we'd also do well to have a little more sympathy for those who hold different views, even if we ultimately disagree. Because at the end of the day, we're all the same.

Peace,

-Chris

[Craig Paxton]

Three things:

1. Your apology is commendable. It takes courage and class to admit error.

When I'm wrong I admit it...and with respect to there being truth behind George A. Smith's story...I believe that there is sufficient evidence to support the milk strippings story to admit that I was wrong.

2. I said on the other thread and I'll say it here: The lack of extant documentation and your own obvious personal dislike for George A. Smith are hardly justification for concluding the incident never happened and the man was guilty of a wholesale lie. It happens that records get lost or destroyed, and given the fact that the Church was under constant pressure of violence and persecution, was frequently on the move in the early days to ensure its own survival — and the fact that the incident in question occurred more than a century-and-a-half ago — makes that likelihood more than plausible, assuming there were records kept in the first place. Elder Smith's own account from personal knowledge, he having been a close associate and confidant of Church leaders at the time, should be regarded as evidence in and of itself.

I hold no personal animosity against George A. Smith. The only adjective that I used to describe him was the use of the word ‘firebrand’. A firebrand is a very energetic person or someone who stirs up unrest. George A. Smith was sent to Cedar City during the Mommon reformation just before the Mountain Meadows incident to recommit the saints. Although some here may disagree, I believe that he was very much involved in heating things up abit for a certain party of non-Mormon’s who ventures through that area soon after. I am NOT suggesting that he ordered MMM. But I do believe that he was a firebrand and an essential element in whipping up the Cedar City pioneers.

3. Apostasy is spelled with an s, not a c.

Yeah I'm a terrible speller...thanks for again reminding me of my inability to spell...I am now sufficiently offended that even though I WAS on the verge of returning to the church...I am now so deeply offended by your pointing out that I misspelled apostas[c]y...that instead I'm remaining an apostate.

wink wink I'm ONLY kidding...

[urroner]

Great post, urroner. I think it highlights three important truths:

1) People's motives are complicated, and actions can rarely be traced to just one causal factor. Paradigm shifts usually happen when cognitive dissonance reaches a critical mass. It's the death of a thousand cuts. If you reduce a person's decision to just one of those cuts-- perhaps the one that finally pushed them over the edge-- then you'll end up creating a caricature of their motives. And, frankly, the complexity of our motives means that even the person who experienced the shift may be completely unable to articulate why it happened.

2) Much of what goes on in our heads is simply beyond our control. If there's anything that modern science has taught us, it's that our thought processes are largely determined by factors in the physical world, whether those are chemicals in the brain or environmental factors. By removing a certain portion of your brain, I can turn you into a bad person. By cutting the connections between the two hemispheres of your brain, I can turn you into essentially two separate people inhabiting the same body. And even for perfectly healthy people, I can make some fairly reliable predictions about ideology and behavior if I have some basic demographic information about them, such as race, income, and level of education.

3) I'm reminded of the old writer's dictum that everyone is the hero of his own story. Even if you disapprove of the consequences of someone's actions, you have to realize that they will usually think of themselves as having noble motives. For example, I disapprove of the demonization of apostates, but I also realize that those who engage in this sort of activity don't think of it as demonization, at all. In their minds, they are stating simple facts in defense of the simple truth. Well, it's the same for some apostates. In their minds, the truth is simple, and the only reason you all can't see it is because you've been brainwashed by an exploitative cult. These beliefs are sincere, well-meaning, and-- from the perspectives of those who hold them-- perfectly warranted by their observations of the world.

We'd all do well to make more of an effort to see things from other people's point of view, I think. And we'd also do well to have a little more sympathy for those who hold different views, even if we ultimately disagree. Because at the end of the day, we're all the same.

Peace,

-Chris

Thanks Chris. Coming from you, that means a lot to me.

Also, I agree with your post very much.

[ELF1024]

Yeah I'm a terrible speller...thanks for again reminding me of my inability to spell...I am now sufficiently offended that even though I WAS on the verge of returning to the church...I am now so deeply offended by your pointing out that I misspelled apostas[c]y...that instead I'm remaining an apostate.

wink wink I'm ONLY kidding...

In that same spirit may I suggest that you cook that crow to being well done... no sense getting bird flu...

[Okrahomer]

I've been banned from my own thread for reasons that still are unclear to me...But I want to eat my crow and acknowledge that I was too fast to conclude that there was no truth behind the Milk Strippings story. Although I still contend that apostacy is much more complicated than presented and taught...it appears that I was wrong in thnking that the milk strippings story was an invention of George A Smith...I'm here to eat my crow/hat... whatever you place on my plate.

I wish to apologize to 'Deborah'...for me its mere entertainment to joust with you...its never anything personal and although we may disagree on many things...I do respect your right to your beliefs. I want to thank Okrahomer for his/her links. I do feel that although not conclusive...there is enough information to concude that there is truth behind the story. I would prefer a link to the actual church court records, but you have made your point and I acknowledge that on this subject...there is enough evidence to suggest that there is truth in the Milk Strippings story. My sincere apology to all concerned. Consider it a good day for defenders of the church...the evil apostate has been vanquished. Drat...foiled again...

NOW in all sincerity...can someone please explain to me why I was banned? Seriously I don't get it...I was dishing it out as much as it was being dished. I understand the need to be civil to fellow posters...but what exactly did I say that was out of line? Can someone help me understand?

Cheers,

Craig

Thank you for the acknowledgement. I’m interested: Does this experience have any sort of moderating effect on your negative feelings (my perception) toward the LDS Church?

[Craig Paxton]

Thank you for the acknowledgement. I’m interested: Does this experience have any sort of moderating effect on your negative feelings (my perception) toward the LDS Church?

I am not hostile towards the church. I just do not believe that it is what it claims to be. Bottom line, I'm only interested in truth. If I find any premise or belief I currently hold that is not based in truth I will reject it.

When I went through my faith crises it was because I found the alternative views more credible and fact based. IF I ever discover I have been deceived or my worldview is not based in truth I will reject it and find a one that is

As a once devoted believing member, I would have never thought I would/could lose my testimony but there came a time in my life I could no longer fake belief and claim to know things I didn't actually know. I had to know. It was that desire to know whether the church really was all it claimed that led me to lose my faith and belief.

Again it's complicated

[ERayR]

I am not hostile towards the church. I just do not believe that it is what it claims to be. Bottom line, I'm only interested in truth. If I find any premise or belief I currently hold that is not based in truth I will reject it.

When I went through my faith crises it was because I found the alternative views more credible and fact based. iF I ever discover I have been deceived or my worldview not based in truth I will reject it and find a one that is

As a once devoted believing member, I would have never thought I would/could lose my testimony but there came a time in my life I could no longer fake belief. I had to know. It was that desire to know whether the church really was all it claimed that led me to lose what faith and belief I had

Again it's complicated

Again there are others of us who have questioned and searched and frome the same information you have used to reject your belief we have found not credible and have come out the other side strengthened in our beliefs. It all depends on whose evidence and testimony you Choose to accept,

[Craig Paxton]

Again there are others of us who have questioned and searched and frome the same information you have used to reject your belief we have found not credible and have come out the other side strengthened in our beliefs. It all depends on whose evidence and testimony you Choose to accept,

To me it is less like a choice and more like an acknowledgement of reality (no offense intended). I know that others exposed to the same information can and do come to different conclusions or are able to massage information so that it is still faith promoting. For me. The truth claims as I understand them to be Are not believable

[Log]

To me it is less like a choice and more like an acknowledgement of reality (no offense intended). I know that others exposed to the same information can and do come to different conclusions or are able to massage information so that it is still faith promoting. For me. The truth claims as I understand them to be Are not believable

Let us see what, exactly, you believe withstands all critical examination. What purported "facts," as you accept them to be, are incompatible with the truth claims of the Church?

[brightpath]

The Apostasy happened because Israel rejected Christ and the gospel so God turned to the Gentiles but He promised Israel that they would get back the gospel when the times of the Gentiles comes to an end. Thus, the first shall be last and the last shall be first. Read Romans 11 and 3 Nephi chpts 20-21

[Craig Paxton]

Let us see what, exactly, you believe withstands all critical examination. What purported "facts," as you accept them to be, are incompatible with the truth claims of the Church?

We can do this if you like. Trust me I've been down this road with church apologists, bishops, stake presidents, general authorities and it seems to always end the same way. Craig you just need to have faith, read the book of mormon and pray.

Well I've done all that and it didn't work. So then what. Craig. You weren't sincere enough. Craig you haven't tried hard enough. Craig just keep pounding your head into the brick wall and if you do it hard enough and long enough with enough sincerity You will know it's true.

And we always end up agreeing to disagree on critical issues

But if u think you're up to it. I'm always willing subject my beliefs. But I think when it comes down to it you will be unwilling to concede any point nor able to answer all my concerns

[Stargazer]

The Apostasy happened because Israel rejected Christ and the gospel so God turned to the Gentiles but He promised Israel that they would get back the gospel when the times of the Gentiles comes to an end. Thus, the first shall be last and the last shall be first. Read Romans 11 and 3 Nephi chpts 20-21

Oops, you meant to post in another topic, methinks.

[Mars]

To me it is less like a choice and more like an acknowledgement of reality (no offense intended)

Right... none taken...

[Stargazer]

To me it is less like a choice and more like an acknowledgement of reality (no offense intended). I know that others exposed to the same information can and do come to different conclusions or are able to massage information so that it is still faith promoting. For me. The truth claims as I understand them to be Are not believable

Yes, one man's reality is another man's funhouse mirror.

[Libs]

We can do this if you like. Trust me I've been down this road with church apologists, bishops, stake presidents, general authorities and it seems to always end the same way. Craig you just need to have faith, read the book of mormon and pray.

Well I've done all that and it didn't work. So then what. Craig. You weren't sincere enough. Craig you haven't tried hard enough. Craig just keep pounding your head into the brick wall and if you do it hard enough and long enough with enough sincerity You will know it's true.

And we always end up agreeing to disagree on critical issues

But if u think you're up to it. I'm always willing subject my beliefs. But I think when it comes down to it you will be unwilling to concede any point nor able to answer all my concerns

Just curious what your main issues with the church were, Craig. (I am inactive LDS, myself) You don't have to go into any detail, just briefly, if you wouldn't mind?

[Log]

But if u think you're up to it. I'm always willing subject my beliefs. But I think when it comes down to it you will be unwilling to concede any point nor able to answer all my concerns

Even if not (and who knows?), at least you will have made a contribution to the board. A real dialogue and discussion can occur. Might not be with me.

[Deborah]

I know that others exposed to the same information can and do come to different conclusions or are able to massage information so that it is still faith promoting. For me. The truth claims as I understand them to be Are not believable

interesting term in bold. How do you know you aren't massaging information to fit your new-found paradigm.

I wonder if you think that some of us don't know all the things that you know, which seems to be the main view of at least one ex-Mo board I visited briefly. I wonder this because I think a lot of ex-Mo's don't think we who stay look at things realistically. Which of course isn't true. We just recognize the human nature of what God has to work with and remain amazed at how much gets accomplished in spite of that.

I can look askew at some incidents but I can't question the doctrine that has come out of a very human prophet of God.

[ERayR]

We can do this if you like. Trust me I've been down this road with church apologists, bishops, stake presidents, general authorities and it seems to always end the same way. Craig you just need to have faith, read the book of mormon and pray.

Well I've done all that and it didn't work. So then what. Craig. You weren't sincere enough. Craig you haven't tried hard enough. Craig just keep pounding your head into the brick wall and if you do it hard enough and long enough with enough sincerity You will know it's true.

And we always end up agreeing to disagree on critical issues

But if u think you're up to it. I'm always willing subject my beliefs. But I think when it comes down to it you will be unwilling to concede any point nor able to answer all my concerns

I would not presume to tell you you have not tried all the things you mentioned nor would I presume to tell you that you have not been dilligent or sincere enough. What I am questioning is that you have subjected the information you do accept to the same standard and critical analysis that you subject the information you receive about the church.

[Craig Paxton]

Just curious what your main issues with the church were, Craig. (I am inactive LDS, myself) You don't have to go into any detail, just briefly, if you wouldn't mind?

There is not a main issue...it is many many things that the church tries to pass off as being true or based in reality. In other words it is the worldview that the church tries to pass off as reality.

The best analogy to describe Mormonism for me is that of a “Jig Saw Puzzle”. Mormonism is made up of thousands of random pieces of doctrine, scripture, history, prophetic pronouncements, cultural, scholarship and world view claims. It makes claims that touch both the physical and spiritual worlds. Its purview even touches and makes claims regarding astrophysics, biology, human history, anthropology, archeology and physics.

Each of these myriad of puzzle pieces is a testable claim. Some stand up to scrutiny others do not. Many fit nicely together, some must be forced to fit while others do not seem to even come from the same puzzle box.

The church has shown an uncanny human like ability to survive and evolve in a world that is often changing faster than its ability to change, yet it always seems to be one or two steps behind societal evolution.

Rather than acting like a God run organization…it instead demonstrates in every detail that it is subject to the same bias’s, viewpoints, pressures and other human frailties that every other man made organization is subject to. It follows societal trends…is pressured by societal pressure and like all other man made organizations it eventually succumbs to these trends and pressures like every other man made organization with a desire to survive. If nothing else…the church knows when to abandon God’s law to survive.

Mormonism is either what it claims to be or it is not. For me and me alone, the mere fact that these puzzle pieces do not fit is evidence enough for me that Mormonism is not what it claims to be.

Is there good in Mormonism? Sure. Does it have the capacity to make its members happy? I believe it does. But after a life time of trying to find that elusive happiness within the claims of Mormonism I had to finally conclude that it did not make me happy….it caused me more mental pain than it did happiness due to the cognitive dissonance of trying repeatedly to make those puzzle pieces fit together. To me and again for me alone…(I'm being diplomatic) it is built on a false premise and serves false promises that it never has to deliver on...in order to keep its membership in check.

The basic message and promises of Mormonism are beautiful…but when one places all of the various claims on the scales of truth and subject them to scrutiny (for me) they tilt in a direction that led me out of the church.

It’s rather interesting that for me all of the contortions and mind numbing apologizing I used to have to do to make Mormonism believable…simply disappeared once I accepted that the church simply is not what it claimed to be.

Could I be wrong…sure…do I believe I am no.

I am trying to be as respectful to the active believing posters of this board as much possible. I accept that you cannot and will not accept my position, for to do so undermines your own ability to continue belief. As stated earlier…many of the conclusions I’ve come to could have gone both ways….that alone would NOT have been enough for me to lose belief in the church…it is when I combine every claim and weigh it out in what I believe to be real world…that the claims come up short.

I also believe that if every poster here was being honest with themselves....they too would admit that there are many difficulties with the claims of Mormonism and many things that simply do not add up. Most will not admit this...at least not here.

To quote President Hinckley …” Well, it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true, it's the most important thing in the world. Now, that's the whole picture. It is right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true.”

On that point President Hinckley and I are in complete agreement…and then he continues…” And that's exactly where we stand, with a conviction in our hearts that it is true” this is where he and I take different paths…because while he sees the church as being true…I see a much more nuanced organization…one that certainly does good and inflicts pain, has truth and and has falsehoods, is right on many issues and is wrong on many issues…but ultimately...for me...not what it claims to be.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

right and wrong…but ultimately not what it claims to be.

Perhaps then you have a wrong idea of what the church claims to be?

Just study and pray about it.