I Like My Crow Medium Rare

[Craig Paxton]

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.

Ultimatly...it really just comes down to whether or not an individual finds a particular claim to be believable. While much of Mormonism is very believable...there is much more that for me no longer is.

I think that there are ways to force belief, or contort a particular difficult issue to massage it in a way that one can rationalize it and make it acceptable. (at least this is what I used to do...I'm not suggesting that this is what all of you do) There are ways to ignore things or place them on our mental shelf. There are often conflicting views and perspectives on issues. Two people can examine the same issue and come to conflicting conclusions....religion ultimately ends up on the door step of belief and faith...even when the same issue to others are not faithful or believable.

[ERayR]

Ultimatly...it really just comes down to whether or not an individual finds a particular claim to be believable. While much of Mormonism is very believable...there is much more that for me no longer is.

I think that there are ways to force belief, or contort a particular difficult issue to massage it in a way that one can rationalize it and make it acceptable. (at least this is what I used to do...I'm not suggesting that this is what all of you do) There are ways to ignore things or place them on our mental shelf. There are often conflicting views and perspectives on issues. Two people can examine the same issue and come to conflicting conclusions....religion ultimately ends up on the door step of belief and faith...even when the same issue to others are not faithful or believable.

It all comes down to personal experiences and the things we choose, for whatever reason, to accept.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

I know that many people blame the Mountain Meadows Massacre on George A. Smith and hold him in contempt for his rallying sermons to prepare the people of the territory to resist what they with good reason perceived to be the approach of a hostile invasion by the federal government. From your use of the word "firebrand" in your opening post, I guessed that you were among those who so regard apostle Smith.

I think it well to remember, in fixing blame, the historical context of these events. A scant 10 years earlier, the Mormons had been forced from the then-existing boundaries of the United States by oppression sustained by the acquiescence and, in some cases the direct assistance, of politicians and office holders. With that in mind, I find it hard to condemn Georg A. — and other Church leaders of the day — for using fiery rhetoric.

I don't know the extent of your own knowledge about George A. Smith, but my guess is that many of the faultfinders don't know a whole lot about him beyond the association with Mountain Meadows. Like other contributors to this board, I was very recently in St. George, Utah, for the Mormon History Association Conference, where I was reminded that the city was named in honor of George A. Smith. There is a reason why the word "Saint" was used; it reflects the esteem in which the people held him. His nobility and strength of character were demonstrated early on when he, as a young man in his teens, participated in the Zion's Camp march to recover the lands and property that were forcibly taken from the saints in Independence, Mo.

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...

I notice this is a common error that is just as apt to be made by devout Mormons as by others. It is a pet peeve. Perhaps I am hypercritical because I am daily immersed in words.

[Deborah]

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.

As I said above 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.

[Scott Lloyd]

Ultimatly...it really just comes down to whether or not an individual finds a particular claim to be believable.

Very true. So it boils down to a matter of choice to believe or disbelieve, not necessarily because one side of the argument is more compelling than the other.

And if I may say so, we have an instance here of your failure to look critically at one of your own contentions: that George A. Smith was lying -- not just mistaken, but lying -- this based on the lack of extant written documentation for church court proceedings. As it has turned out, that was an exceedingly tenuous basis for such a conclusion. Ergo, you chose to take a position that was not based on any compelling -- or even substantive -- reasoning.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

As I said above 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.

This narrative is sounding familiar. Mormons is so stupid. And the critics are so enlightened. We are just a bunch of rubes that don't know anything and that is why we stay in the church. "If you just knew what I knew you would leave". This is tiring.

Oh, and apparently we are just not honest with ourselves.

[Libs]

Craig, thanks much for your response.

I understand your feelings about the church. I have been there. I have been so disaffected/disappointed & confused, at times, that I was willing to throw it all away. But, I have to say, something in me (the Spirit, perhaps) has not allowed me to stay, comfortably, in that position for very long.

Did you ever have a spiritual testimony of the church? I did and some of that lingers, especially in regards to the Book of Mormon. I have been in several churches, since I left the LDS Church, and they are all "flawed", because God is using flawed, fallen human beings to run them. None are perfect.

Also, I am coming to the realization that not only are humans flawed (sinful and weak, at times), but we also lack the capacity to completely understand God and all that He is. Our understanding of Him is, likely, very elementary, so, of course, we will see missing pieces or a very strange looking puzzle that doesn't seem to fit. That is humans looking through a "glass darkly", I believe....and where faith must get us through.

Appreciate your sharing. I know that's not always easy. I do understand where you're coming from.

God bless.

[Craig Paxton]

Very true. So it boils down to a matter of choice to believe or disbelieve, not necessarily because one side of the argument is more compelling than the other.

Scott..."classic strawman" ...you are misrepresenting what I said. You’re suggesting that I made a choice between two equal decisions …such as choosing between having chocolate or vanilla ice cream. When in fact what I did was weigh out of the evidence both pro and con, examine and subject Mormonism truth claims to scrutiny and let the chips fall where they may. I did not begin my quest with the answer before I even know what my question was. I was not seeking to find out if the church was true or not…It didn’t matter any longer if the church was what it claimed to be or not…what I was after was the truth, plain and simple. Although in the beginning of my search I gave the church the benefit of the doubt…but as learned more and more about my Mormon heritage…I quickly began to mistrust the church as an honest broker of truth. It was only after an exhaustive examination, I allowed myself to follow the evidence …it was the overwhelming evidence or the lack thereof that led me out of the church.

And if I may say so, we have an instance here of your failure to look critically at one of your own contentions: that George A. Smith was lying -- not just mistaken, but lying -- this based on the lack of extant written documentation for church court proceedings. As it has turned out, that was an exceedingly tenuous basis for such a conclusion. Ergo, you chose to take a position that was not based on any compelling -- or even substantive -- reasoning.

Actually what we have is exactly the opposite of what you claim...I did in fact look critically at my own position and allowed the evidence to change my position. If I used to word lying to describe Smith I was using hyperbole...but at the time I did not believe that he was a credible witness. I was proven to be mistaken...when I felt that the evidence supported a different conclusion than the one I was espousing, I changed my view...much like I did when I learned that my Mormon worldview was not built on as firm a foundation as I had been taught...I change my view point and went where the evidence took me.

[Craig Paxton]

This narrative is sounding familiar. Mormons is so stupid. And the critics are so enlightened. We are just a bunch of rubes that don't know anything and that is why we stay in the church. "If you just knew what I knew you would leave". This is tiring.

Oh, and apparently we are just not honest with ourselves.

Those are your words not mine....I have never suggested that anyone on this board is stupid, deluded or mistaken OR that I am in any way superior or more enlighten than anyone here. In fact I am impressed with many of the posters here...which is exactly what I would expect to find. This is not a board for the faint of heart.

What I have said in several posts is that we have looked at the same information and formed different conclusions regarding the truth claims of Mormonism.

[Craig Paxton]

Did you ever have a spiritual testimony of the church?

Yes, I had many miraculous spiritual experiences while a member of the church. I have had to come to terms with each of them and reinterpret them in light of my current world view and my understanding of how the human mind interprets information and often unexplainable experiences.

[Craig Paxton]

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

Deborah...I beleive that we are all guilty of massaging information to fit our respective paraydms...

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.

Ummm...not to be rude...But..."recognize[ing] the human nature of what God has to work with and remain amazed at how much gets accomplished in spite of that" is massaging...you've found a way to make the human realities of the church believable for you...and thats ok...I"m happy that it works for you.

[Deborah]

Ummm...not to be rude...But..."recognize[ing] the human nature of what God has to work with and remain amazed at how much gets accomplished in spite of that" is massaging...you've found a way to make the human realities of the church believable for you...and thats ok...I"m happy that it works for you.

Given that all prophets are very human, even the great prophets of the OT, I don't know how that can be a way of massaging information. It's a fact. The other fact is that the doctrine is very fulfilling in understanding our purpose for being here. If you throw out the prophets you have to throw out the doctrine. I suppose if one is "massaging" facts he will have to do that as you can't have such profound doctrine with such corrupt men.

[Craig Paxton]

Given that all prophets are very human, even the great prophets of the OT, I don't know how that can be a way of massaging information. It's a fact. The other fact is that the doctrine is very fulfilling in understanding our purpose for being here. If you throw out the prophets you have to throw out the doctrine. I suppose if one is "massaging" facts he will have to do that as you can't have such profound doctrine with such corrupt men.

Deborah...you are a credit to your religion...you never give an inch or concede a single point. You make me smile... Stonewall Jackson would be proud....but then he lost an arm to amputation and later died due to complications...imagine what might have been if he had only been more pragmatic...

[Deborah]

Alma 1:25 "Now this was a great trial to those that did stand fast in the faith; nevertheless, they were steadfast and immovable in keeping the commandments of God, and they bore with patience the persecution which was heaped upon them."

[Mars]

Craig, I can't tell what you're trying to say.

Your use of the word 'massage' implies that there's some sort of self deception going on, almost where those who do not reject the claims of the Church in spite of the criticisms they're aware of do it by tricking themselves?

Do I understand you?

And what's the stuff about Deborah and Stonewall Jackson? It kinda feels like you're spitting on her but calling it rain.

[Deborah]

And what's the stuff about Deborah and Stonewall Jackson? It kinda feels like you're spitting on her but calling it rain.

I obviously am one of those hopeless Mormons who have to massage the facts to fit my beliefs. I'm not the one who had to change the whole of my spiritual experiences to fit a new paradigm of non-belief. I never have understood how one can do that. Now that is some massaging.

[Libs]

I truly admire people who are strong in their faith. I wish I had whatever it takes to be like that.

I also understand the doubting Thomas, like myself. (all too well )

We are all where we are for whatever reasons...spiritual growth, maturity, gifted for some reason or whatever. Probably, not a good idea to make comparisons (or judgments), because it is what it is, and we are all learning at our own pace.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

From the other thread...

Hestia: Craig Paxton is no longer on this thread due to continuous insulting remarks.

---

You want to know why, you need to take it up with the mods, before you do or discuss it more like this, I would suggest you read the board guidelines again.

Clears up that question.

[Craig Paxton]

Craig, I can't tell what you're trying to say.

Your use of the word 'massage' implies that there's some sort of self deception going on, almost where those who do not reject the claims of the Church in spite of the criticisms they're aware of do it by tricking themselves?

Do I understand you?

No you don't...If you've read all of my posts in this thread I've been quite accommodating...and share the notion that everyone massages difficult information in order to make it fit within our respective belief system. We "all" emphasize something’s while perhaps ignoring or even discounting some other aspects in order to make it more comfortable. I believe we all do this…both inside and out of the church.

And what's the stuff about Deborah and Stonewall Jackson? It kinda feels like you're spitting on her but calling it rain.

Well I'm obviously not in sync with the thin skin here and I'll do my best to tone it down...but that remark was intended as a funny back handed compliment to her unmovable positions. I even commented on how her seemingly fixed positions made me smile. But I can see that my brand of humor...isn't understood here...and I also understand that it is sometimes difficult to communicate ones intentions through the written word.

[Mars]

Let me try again.

No you don't...If you've read all of my posts in this thread I've been quite accommodating...and share the notion that everyone massages difficult information in order to make it fit within our respective belief system. We "all" emphasize something’s while perhaps ignoring or even discounting some other aspects in order to make it more comfortable. I believe we all do this…both inside and out of the church.

Bold mine - I fail to see how someone would do this, inside of the Church or no, without being aware of what they are doing. How is this not self-deception? That you apply the situation to everyone isn't germane to my question. I don't care whether or not you're trying to target Mormons in some passive-aggressive way by making your blanket large enough to cover everyone, Mormon or no, what I want to know is this: Do you feel that if you ignore or discount some aspects of your belief system in order to maintain it, does that make it tantamount to self-deception? Why or why not? And what would motivate you to emphasize this and ignore/discount that?

Well I'm obviously not in sync with the thin skin here and I'll do my best to tone it down...but that remark was intended as a funny back handed compliment to her unmovable positions. I even commented on how her seemingly fixed positions made me smile. But I can see that my brand of humor...isn't understood here...and I also understand that it is sometimes difficult to communicate ones intentions through the written word.

Eh. Ok.

[Craig Paxton]

Let me try again.

Bold mine - I fail to see how someone would do this, inside of the Church or no, without being aware of what they are doing. How is this not self-deception? That you apply the situation to everyone isn't germane to my question. I don't care whether or not you're trying to target Mormons in some passive-aggressive way by making your blanket large enough to cover everyone, Mormon or no, what I want to know is this: Do you feel that if you ignore or discount some aspects of your belief system in order to maintain it, does that make it tantamount to self-deception? Why or why not? And what would motivate you to emphasize this and ignore/discount that?

To answer your question directly...Yes its self-deception if you are aware of a particular difficulty and rather than deal with it you ignore it or find some way to accommodate it in order to maintain belief. Let me give you an example of where I believe this kind of massaging of a belief takes place within the church.

Let's use the church teaching of a Universal Flood vs. Local Flood as an example. http://lds.org/ensign/1998/01/the-flood-and-the-tower-of-babel?lang=eng&query=universal+flood this is an easy one because it either did or it did not happen AND there are members of the church on both sides of this belief.

When an orthodox universal flood believing member of the church first subjects what they believe to be true regarding all that is taught regarding the universal flood to scrutiny...they're in for a shock...it just doesn’t stand up. Yet there are so many prophetic pronouncements and scriptural support for a beleif in the universal flood...that it puts them in a position where what they believe to be true doesn't confirm with reality....what do they do? They must massage what their belief is to make it conform to this new reality. Enter...localized flood theory. It provides a safe harbor to dock ones belief.

But then they read the scriptures further and discover even Moroni believed in a universal flood; Ether 13:2 which reads:

“For behold, they rejected all the words of Ether; for he truly told them of all things, from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof;"

So this well-meaning member is now faced with a new conundrum...their once firm belief in a universal flood having been nuanced/massaged...to conform with scientific/biological reality..accepts the localized flood theory....must now somehow be massaged again to accommodate a passage in the Book of Mormon which clearly suggests that there was in fact a universal flood which impacted even the America's...but both can't be correct.

So what MIGHT this individual do? They ignore this conflict, massage their belief or as you suggest self-delude themself with statements like well it isn't important to my salvation... and...in order to maintain belief in the greater religion they just take this inconsistency and put it on the back shelf of their mind by ignoring it and leaving it unanswered.

So is this self-delusion (your words) I believe it is. Do we all do it on some level or another....I believe we do...however I am willing to grant that you may be the exception.

[Mars]

I didn't say self-delusion. I said self-deception. Though I suppose for the purpose of the discussion the two are the same.

I now more understand your position. Thank you.