Criticism

[_harmony]

We've had some discussion lately about apostacy, hypocrits, liars, etc. It seems that every thread immediately turns critical, full of animosity and venom, even though the comments generated by the discussion weren't necessarily critical.

What is criticism? Here's three definitions:

crit·i·cism /ˈkrɪtəˌsɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[krit-uh-siz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything.
2. the act of passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding.
3. the act or art of analyzing and evaluating or judging the quality of a literary or artistic work, musical performance, art exhibit, dramatic production, etc.
4. a critical comment, article, or essay; critique.
5. any of various methods of studying texts or documents for the purpose of dating or reconstructing them, evaluating their authenticity, analyzing their content or style, etc.: historical criticism; literary criticism.
6. investigation of the text, origin, etc., of literary documents, esp. Biblical ones: textual criticism.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1600–10; critic + -ism]


—Synonyms 2. stricture, animadversion. 4. See review.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source crit·i·cism (krĭt'ĭ-sĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n.
The act of criticizing, especially adversely.
A critical comment or judgment.

The practice of analyzing, classifying, interpreting, or evaluating literary or other artistic works.
A critical article or essay; a critique.
The investigation of the origin and history of literary documents; textual criticism.


(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
WordNet - Cite This Source criticism

noun
1. disapproval expressed by pointing out faults or shortcomings; "the senator received severe criticism from his opponent"
2. a serious examination and judgment of something; "constructive criticism is always appreciated"
3. a written evaluation of a work of literature

WordNet® 2.1, © 2005 Princeton University

In all 3 of these definitions, we see that criticism may not always be adverse. It can be adverse, but it doesn't have to be and isn't always. Thus, if a poster-who-shall-remain-anonymous wants to post a paper he/she wrote and asks for discussion, criticism is likely to result. And criticism of the LDS church is not only allowed but expected here. And in neither situation (criticism of the paper and/or the church) does there need to be an assumption that the criticism is malicious or adverse. The criticism can be malicious and/or adverse, but it is not always nor should it automatically be assumed that it is.

Criticism includes an analysis component. The expectation is that someone will spend some of their limited amounts of time in a day reading and commenting on the subject of the thread. One critic will spend more time on certain points than another will. Some points carry heavier weight than others, but even the pickiest critic can give feedback that is valuable. Thus all criticism is of value, if the originator is truly accepting; it's when the originator resists feedback based on who delivers it more than what is the content that creates problems. We all know the church resists all feedback, with only a few noted and previously accepted exceptions. Individuals may accept feedback on occasion and resist it on other occasions, depending on various factors, including relationships and past history. Because of that, helpful criticism can be missed.

Delivery of the criticism can influence whether or not the criticism is accepted or not, even though whether the delivery is friendly or less-than-friendly, the information within the criticism has the same value. For example, on the thread about early church history, I made a comment about the lack of the word "some" in a sentence. This was met with resistence from the owner of the thread. A very similiar observation was made by Bond; the thread owner did not meet this observation with the same resistence. An almost identical comment with mine was made by Liz, about the same lack of "some", with the added weight that she is a college teacher. No resistence as of yet to Liz's comment. Thus we see a pattern: virtually identical criticism is accepted from some and resisted from others, based on who it is who delivers the message. Thus, it's not the message that's important to this unnamed poster; it's the messenger and the tone. The inability to accept criticism from all sources often results in a FARMS-style presentation, one-sided and incomplete.

The ability to accept criticism, even from people who aren't traditional supporters, is a sign of academic maturity. Many of our LDS scholars lack that ability, even long after they pass their thesis defense. The siege mentality that underlies our traditional isolation and lack of interaction with non-LDS scholars supports this lack. Hopefully as Mormon Studies moves out of our traditional isolation and into mainstream academia we can remedy both our lack of interaction and our inability to accept criticism.

[_Bond...James Bond]

Delivery of the criticism can influence whether or not the criticism is accepted or not, even though whether the delivery is friendly or less-than-friendly, the information within the criticism has the same value. For example, on the thread about early church history, I made a comment about the lack of the word "some" in a sentence. This was met with resistence from the owner of the thread. A very similiar observation was made by Bond; the thread owner did not meet this observation with the same resistence. An almost identical comment with mine was made by Liz, about the same lack of "some", with the added weight that she is a college teacher. No resistence as of yet to Liz's comment. Thus we see a pattern: virtually identical criticism is accepted from some and resisted from others, based on who it is who delivers the message. Thus, it's not the message that's important to this unnamed poster; it's the messenger and the tone. The inability to accept criticism from all sources often results in a FARMS-style presentation, one-sided and incomplete.

The ability to accept criticism, even from people who aren't traditional supporters, is a sign of academic maturity. Many of our LDS scholars lack that ability, even long after they pass their thesis defense. The siege mentality that underlies our traditional isolation and lack of interaction with non-LDS scholars supports this lack. Hopefully as Mormon Studies moves out of our traditional isolation and into mainstream academia we can remedy both our lack of interaction and our inability to accept criticism.

Not sure why some people act in this way. Maybe traditional conservative LDS have yet to come to grips with the idea that there may be a more liberal form of LDS religion and that the LDS viewpoint is not one homogenous belief, but many different views unique to each different person.

Either way, a person should be able to criticize, critique, and examine there own belief system according to their own conscience. A person may not agree with all points and doctrine within a certain religion, yet still agree with the majority of the doctine and culture and thus still be a member of that religion and community.

Bond

[_harmony]

Delivery of the criticism can influence whether or not the criticism is accepted or not, even though whether the delivery is friendly or less-than-friendly, the information within the criticism has the same value. For example, on the thread about early church history, I made a comment about the lack of the word "some" in a sentence. This was met with resistence from the owner of the thread. A very similiar observation was made by Bond; the thread owner did not meet this observation with the same resistence. An almost identical comment with mine was made by Liz, about the same lack of "some", with the added weight that she is a college teacher. No resistence as of yet to Liz's comment. Thus we see a pattern: virtually identical criticism is accepted from some and resisted from others, based on who it is who delivers the message. Thus, it's not the message that's important to this unnamed poster; it's the messenger and the tone. The inability to accept criticism from all sources often results in a FARMS-style presentation, one-sided and incomplete.

The ability to accept criticism, even from people who aren't traditional supporters, is a sign of academic maturity. Many of our LDS scholars lack that ability, even long after they pass their thesis defense. The siege mentality that underlies our traditional isolation and lack of interaction with non-LDS scholars supports this lack. Hopefully as Mormon Studies moves out of our traditional isolation and into mainstream academia we can remedy both our lack of interaction and our inability to accept criticism.

Not sure why some people act in this way. Maybe traditional conservative LDS have yet to come to grips with the idea that there may be a more liberal form of LDS religion and that the LDS viewpoint is not one homogenous belief, but many different views unique to each different person.

Either way, a person should be able to criticize, critique, and examine there own belief system according to their own conscience. A person may not agree with all points and doctrine within a certain religion, yet still agree with the majority of the doctine and culture and thus still be a member of that religion and community.

Bond

I think one of the problems with the LDS church, and with certain LDS scholars, is that criticism of the leaders has traditionally been taboo. Our early leaders were criticized so often from both the inside and the outside that they reacted with a kneejerk-type response and wrote the taboo into the canon, which then served to muffle the critics, but didn't make their observations and criticisms any less valid. The taboo still stands today as a detriment to conversation and the accompanying growth and maturity. In many ways, the LDS church is still the immature child it was in the early 1800's, simply because the leaders have never allowed any constructive feedback from the rank and file.

[_maklelan]

Obviously this thread is aimed at my request that harmony refrain from posting in my thread. I appreciate her honoring my request and I appreciate a new thread to discuss the issue. I would like to address the OP's insinuation that what she offered up in my thread amounts to constructive criticism, or even honest criticism. If harmony would prefer I not post here then that's her prerogative, but I'd like to spell out what happened so no one is misled because they don't want to invest the time into reading my longish paper.

The following is infered by harmony to be attributes of her criticism of my paper:

The criticism can be malicious and/or adverse, but it is not always nor should it automatically be assumed that it is.

Criticism includes an analysis component.

I will share a few of her criticisms and then share the texts from which they are derived.

To begin with, she responds to my invitation for criticism thus:

Uh huh. We'll see.

We'll see what? If I will accept criticism? I already had accepted many critiques and apologized for rude behavior. Obviously the tone of this post tells me that the winds are already blowing against me. Can I expect a fair trial?

Really? Since when do members of the church have a propensity (or time!) for anything except raising their families, paying their bills, and taking care of their callings? You might qualify your statement with "some" or "a few". Because by and large, I'm pretty sure very very few members of the church are at all concerned with the early Christian church.

This was brought up by two other posters as well, and after their respectful posts I have decided to change it, but this post is full of patronization and insult. The other posts contained much more respectful language:

How many LDS do you think really dig into history beyond doing their genealogies? I doubt most LDS (or any religious person for that matter) digs too deeply into early religious history. In my opinion it's too obscure an area for too many people to be interested in or to be able to comprehend. Online posters (a group of people who may pick up alot more through message boards) may have a decent knowledge of Christian history, but how much do you think the run-of-the-mill Average Joe knows about history?

I was just wondering if you should change the beginning to "A certain segment of the LDS have a propensity..." or "A certain segment of LDS academics have a propensity..." to show that a segment of the community is interested, but to distinguish that segment from the rest who may have little knowledge on the issue.

Notice the use of "in my opinion," and other qualifiers that let me know he respects my opinion, but feels I'm mistaken. The next one:

I agree with James on this. One other way you may want to word it is simply changing it to "Some members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints seem to have a propensity for digging through the history of the early Christian church."

That way, you're still keeping your basic premise, but clarifying it slightly.

No making judgmental statements about the quality of life of LDS people or the presence of their church in their lives, only a helpful post that only shares what they might change to improve it.

"Corrupting"? Gee, Mak... tell us how you really feel! It would do your paper more good if you just said "doctors of theology" and left out your own personal feelings.

The text reads this way:

Among the motivations that might explain this habit, a common one seems to be the desire to discover hidden pockets of the “plain and precious truths” otherwise garnished from the scriptures by the corrupting doctors of theology.

I was thinking about putting quotation marks around some of it to make sure the reader was aware that my description is a paraphrase of how someone studying the church for that reason would view the situation. I can now see that it is unclear, and I will change it. I appreciate the criticism, and I don't feel this particular quote is all that patronizing, but it still comes through in the sarcasm.

Well, that's good to know. I'm sure all those millions of members who've been scouring libraries for early church history will be glad to know all those efforts were in vain. Thank you, Drs Judd and Robinson.

This was the quote that inspired the above quote:

Is it really such a good idea to scour the early Church for signs of truth? Frank F. Judd and Stephen E. Robinson share the important warning that such a journey will never bear fruit. According to Dr. Robinson, “it just isn’t there!”

Harmony misinterprets the quote right off the bat, but that may be due to a clarity issue on my part. I should written "signs of now lost truth." She still manages to take a few jabs at whomever might come within view. This time it is Dr. Judd and Dr. Robinson, both very respected scholars, but harmony doesn't seem to care who they are or what they say, as long as she can taker a pot shot or two. Still, the criticism (as disrespectful as it is) made me realize that the underlying issue needs to be clarified.

You're repeating yourself. I believe you said something remarkably similiar in your previous paragraph, with your "it just isn't there" remark.

The quote you reference here was not mine. It was a quote from other professors, and my paper has a much different spin on it than their thesis. I mentioned that this was my thesis statement, and it serves to show that my intention is to back up the remark made by the other scholars, but by explaining why. I am not repeating myself, I am restating and clarifying.

I have bated breath, I assure you.

What possible chance does my evidence have of penetrating the ego of someone who responds to my thesis in such a manner? What will result? Constructive criticism, or the ejaculations of an emic who's only goal is to tear down anything and everythign that I put up? Let's see. . .

Many outside the church take issue with the LDS stance concerning the influence of the philosophies of men on the doctrines of the church; and some of them, astonished at our presumptuous, see that same influence in our own teachings.

Pot, meet Kettle. But then we really don't like meeting the Pot, when we don't even acknowledge we're the Kettle.

Whatever her statement means, it appears to be the exact same statement I made in my post. I am saying that the situation has the appearance of hypocrisy because people claim to find philosophic corruption in our church just as we claim to find it in the others. I recognize and acknowledge this fact in my statement, but harmony doesn't appear to grasop that as she repeats my point, only this time by insulting me. Not only does she only repeat my statement, but she appears unaware of the fact that the point of my paper is to refute that notion. She has weighed my argument and found it lacking before I have even shared it.

Oh, and I think you mean "presumptuousness" or "presumption". You really don't mean "presumptuous".

She is perfectly correct here, and I thanked her and told her I would change it. She responded in the following manner:

You're welcome. I bet that hurt.

No, actually, it did not hurt. A part of being a scholar is accepting that you don't know everything, and when someone makes this clear to you you thank them and accept the criticism. I am quite used to this and have displayed that capacity to accept criticism and responsiblity on several different occasions, but apparently the idea of admitting a mistake (even a spell-check mistake) would cut harmony to the core. I understand that it may hurt you, but it doesn't hurt me at all. Why would you say that?

Ah. A scholar! A rarity indeed in the Mormon Studies field.

This was the section that inspired this response:

Many outside the church take issue with the LDS stance concerning the influence of the philosophies of men on the doctrines of the church; and some of them, astonished at our presumptuous, see that same influence in our own teachings. One such scholar discusses the hypocrisy of criticizing Hellenized Christianity while at the same time searching for parallels in the teachings of those same Hellenized Christians.

Harmony appears to be unaware of this, but the scholar I referred to was one that was "outside of the church," as the grammar makes abundantly clear. She thinks I'm talking about a Mormon scholar? The rest of the sentence explains exactly that scholar's stance, which cannot possibly be misinterpreted to be an LDS stance. She's not even reading what I'm writing!

So from this section, I get the idea that you think Joseph restored what is essentially a Greek-based teaching of a pre-mortal existence? A teaching decried by and deleted from Christianity because it was considered heretical, a teaching derived from Plato and the Alexandrians... and you say Joseph restored it? Why? It wasn't part of the ancient church. So essentially you're saying Joseph either restored a non-scriptorial and non-doctrinal heresy... or he restored a teaching neither the early Christians or the Jews taught?

No, that's not what I think, and if you actually read the section you would know that. I explain every single thing that she harps on in the section under the heading that inspired this rant. Does she respond to my evidence ? No.

The next section was entitled "Eternal Matter." Harmony responded thus:

I think this one is best left to the physicists and the chemists. Joseph didn't have a clue what he was talking about (and it shows) and neither did the early church fathers (and that shows too).

What does patristics have to do with modern science? Not only does she bring in any utterly irrelevant point, but she ridicules everyone invovled in my paper.

My next section, "Deification," draws this out:

For this you're using a lot of non-doctrinal, non-canonized sources. Stick with the canon. At least that has weight. In case you didn't know, although I'm sure you did, Pres Hinckley relegated the KFD to "a couplet", and "we don't teach that".

The section has absolutely nothig whatsoever to do with the couplet she mentions here. In addition, the phrase is a "couplet" by definition, so it cannot be "relegated" to a couplet, as if English grammar bends to the will of President Hinckley. By the way, the King Follett Discourse (I can only assume that's what you refer to) is not what President Hinckley was talking about.

She finishes with this:

Actually, the presence of such non-doctrinal essentially pagan beliefs, such as these three and others that you don't mention, in our belief systems tells me that Joseph not only didn't have a clue what he was preaching, but had lost his revelatory foundation. His one claim to revelation was the Book of Mormon. It makes me wonder if his connection with God was severed from God's end because of the whole Fanny business. Oliver may have been right.

What I presented is doctrine, and my paper shows that they are actually not pagan. Here Harmony simply reasserts her original position without addressing any evidence or even manifesting any cognition of it.

Harmony, you claim mature peopel can take criticism. I have taken it repeatedly and I have seen no one else on this board take it, especially you. You're being remarkably hypocritical and your ego's self-defense mechanism is bringing the level of your debate way down. I would love an honest and sincere response to my points above, but if all you have to say is that I'm wrong on all counts then I'd rather just leave this board. You make this a remarkably close-minded place to be.

Delivery of the criticism can influence whether or not the criticism is accepted or not, even though whether the delivery is friendly or less-than-friendly, the information within the criticism has the same value. For example, on the thread about early church history, I made a comment about the lack of the word "some" in a sentence. This was met with resistence from the owner of the thread. A very similiar observation was made by Bond; the thread owner did not meet this observation with the same resistence. An almost identical comment with mine was made by Liz, about the same lack of "some", with the added weight that she is a college teacher. No resistence as of yet to Liz's comment. Thus we see a pattern: virtually identical criticism is accepted from some and resisted from others, based on who it is who delivers the message. Thus, it's not the message that's important to this unnamed poster; it's the messenger and the tone. The inability to accept criticism from all sources often results in a FARMS-style presentation, one-sided and incomplete.

Notice all of the examples of correct behavior flow from harmony, while the incorrect behavior never originates with her, but always turns her into the victim.

The ability to accept criticism, even from people who aren't traditional supporters, is a sign of academic maturity.

Harmony, you have yet to accept a single word of my criticisms of your arguments, and yet I've accepted several of your criticisms, and thanked you for them. In addition to this fact, you have failed to acknowledge in any capacity whatsoever that I have ceded some of your points.

[_Yoda]

One point that I would like to make about criticism is that even though we ask for it, sometimes it is hard to accept, even when being given in a constructive way.

There is a vulnerability involved in putting your work, or "your baby" out on the table, exposed for people to pick apart.

In addition to teaching, I have also written professionally for a magazine for the past seven years. It's still difficult at times to receive constructive criticism from my editor when I've completed an article that I view as "perfect". LOL

I think it's part of human nature.

[_harmony]

Obviously this thread is aimed at my request that harmony refrain from posting in my thread.

Actually, no, it's aimed at the church's inability to accept criticism; as a LDS apologist wannabe, you may think it's all about you, but in reality, it's about the church. My other thread is aimed directly at you, though.

I appreciate her honoring my request and I appreciate a new thread to discuss the issue. I would like to address the OP's insinuation that what she offered up in my thread amounts to constructive criticism, or even honest criticism.

Again, a misguided assumption. I never suppose I offer constructive criticism, although what I offer is honest. I am not that presumptive.

If harmony would prefer I not post here then that's her prerogative, but I'd like to spell out what happened so no one is misled because they don't want to invest the time into reading my longish paper.

I've never barred anyone from my threads, that I can remember. But I've been known to have a senior moment every now and then, so I may have at some point in my past done that. Not lately though.

[snipp inconsequential chatter]

Can I expect a fair trial?

You didn't ask for a fair trial. Nor did you give one.

Really? Since when do members of the church have a propensity (or time!) for anything except raising their families, paying their bills, and taking care of their callings? You might qualify your statement with "some" or "a few". Because by and large, I'm pretty sure very very few members of the church are at all concerned with the early Christian church.

This was brought up by two other posters as well, and after their respectful posts I have decided to change it, but this post is full of patronization and insult. The other posts contained much more respectful language:

Now we see what you really want: respectful language! Not criticism, not help in seeing what others see in your paper, no no no! You want respectful language. I will remember that. (note to self: light on the substance, heavy on the language when posting on a maklelan thread)

[snip justification comments and on to the next issue]

I was thinking about putting quotation marks around some of it to make sure the reader was aware that my description is a paraphrase of how someone studying the church for that reason would view the situation. I can now see that it is unclear, and I will change it. I appreciate the criticism, and I don't feel this particular quote is all that patronizing, but it still comes through in the sarcasm.

Now you're telling us you know how every person studying the church would view the doctors of theology? They would all agree with you calling those doctors corrupt? Hmmm... I think that's a stretch, mak. I really do.

Well, that's good to know. I'm sure all those millions of members who've been scouring libraries for early church history will be glad to know all those efforts were in vain. Thank you, Drs Judd and Robinson.

This was the quote that inspired the above quote:

Is it really such a good idea to scour the early Church for signs of truth? Frank F. Judd and Stephen E. Robinson share the important warning that such a journey will never bear fruit. According to Dr. Robinson, “it just isn’t there!”

Harmony misinterprets the quote right off the bat, but that may be due to a clarity issue on my part. I should written "signs of now lost truth." She still manages to take a few jabs at whomever might come within view. This time it is Dr. Judd and Dr. Robinson, both very respected scholars, but harmony doesn't seem to care who they are or what they say, as long as she can taker a pot shot or two. Still, the criticism (as disrespectful as it is) made me realize that the underlying issue needs to be clarified.

Why should I care who they are or what they say? They made a random off the cuff comment that you quoted that I commented on, and this is a bad thing on my part? My comment wasn't necessarily directed at them; it was directed at you and your allegation (completely unsupported) that millions of LDS members are scouring libraries looking up the ancient church in some sort of frantic desire to connect the current LDS church with it. In other words, I disagree with your basic comment, not theirs.

You're repeating yourself. I believe you said something remarkably similiar in your previous paragraph, with your "it just isn't there" remark.

[snip and going straight to whining:]

What possible chance does my evidence have of penetrating the ego of someone who responds to my thesis in such a manner? What will result? Constructive criticism, or the ejaculations of an emic who's only goal is to tear down anything and everythign that I put up? Let's see. . .

You only see what you want to see, and disregard the rest. See my comments about "some" and your reaction to them to illustrate this point.

Many outside the church take issue with the LDS stance concerning the influence of the philosophies of men on the doctrines of the church; and some of them, astonished at our presumptuous, see that same influence in our own teachings.

Pot, meet Kettle. But then we really don't like meeting the Pot, when we don't even acknowledge we're the Kettle.

Whatever her statement means, it appears to be the exact same statement I made in my post. I am saying that the situation has the appearance of hypocrisy because people claim to find philosophic corruption in our church just as we claim to find it in the others. I recognize and acknowledge this fact in my statement, but harmony doesn't appear to grasop that as she repeats my point, only this time by insulting me. Not only does she only repeat my statement, but she appears unaware of the fact that the point of my paper is to refute that notion. She has weighed my argument and found it lacking before I have even shared it.

Good grief, I cannot even agree with you! You come unglued, simply because after I agreed, I pointed out that we as members don't like the notion that we're the same as everyone else.

Oh, and I think you mean "presumptuousness" or "presumption". You really don't mean "presumptuous".

She is perfectly correct here, and I thanked her and told her I would change it. She responded in the following manner:

You're welcome. I bet that hurt.

No, actually, it did not hurt. A part of being a scholar is accepting that you don't know everything, and when someone makes this clear to you you thank them and accept the criticism. I am quite used to this and have displayed that capacity to accept criticism and responsiblity on several different occasions, but apparently the idea of admitting a mistake (even a spell-check mistake) would cut harmony to the core. I understand that it may hurt you, but it doesn't hurt me at all. Why would you say that?

Because you are now whining, as I knew you would? You don't like being corrected on even the most trifling grammatical mistake (see the "some" discussion previously discussed), and so... my observation of "I bet that hurt".

Ah. A scholar! A rarity indeed in the Mormon Studies field.

This was the section that inspired this response:

Many outside the church take issue with the LDS stance concerning the influence of the philosophies of men on the doctrines of the church; and some of them, astonished at our presumptuous, see that same influence in our own teachings. One such scholar discusses the hypocrisy of criticizing Hellenized Christianity while at the same time searching for parallels in the teachings of those same Hellenized Christians.

Harmony appears to be unaware of this, but the scholar I referred to was one that was "outside of the church," as the grammar makes abundantly clear. She thinks I'm talking about a Mormon scholar? The rest of the sentence explains exactly that scholar's stance, which cannot possibly be misinterpreted to be an LDS stance. She's not even reading what I'm writing!

No, mak. I knew you were talking about a scholar of Hellenistic Christianity. My use of Mormon Studies is a dig at you, a scholar trying to convolutedly tie Hellenistic Christianity to Mormons in order to untie them (not well done of me, I know).

So from this section, I get the idea that you think Joseph restored what is essentially a Greek-based teaching of a pre-mortal existence? A teaching decried by and deleted from Christianity because it was considered heretical, a teaching derived from Plato and the Alexandrians... and you say Joseph restored it? Why? It wasn't part of the ancient church. So essentially you're saying Joseph either restored a non-scriptorial and non-doctrinal heresy... or he restored a teaching neither the early Christians or the Jews taught?

No, that's not what I think, and if you actually read the section you would know that. I explain every single thing that she harps on in the section under the heading that inspired this rant. Does she respond to my evidence ? No.

Clarity, mak. I'm asking for clarification, and all I got was whining.

The next section was entitled "Eternal Matter." Harmony responded thus:

I think this one is best left to the physicists and the chemists. Joseph didn't have a clue what he was talking about (and it shows) and neither did the early church fathers (and that shows too).

What does patristics have to do with modern science? Not only does she bring in any utterly irrelevant point, but she ridicules everyone invovled in my paper.

What does science have to do with matter? Holy smokes, mak. Don't they teach science at BYU? Science is all about matter. Neither Joseph nor the EFC had a clue about what matter really is, so how can a non-scientific discussion of "eternal matter" mean anything?

My next section, "Deification," draws this out:

For this you're using a lot of non-doctrinal, non-canonized sources. Stick with the canon. At least that has weight. In case you didn't know, although I'm sure you did, Pres Hinckley relegated the KFD to "a couplet", and "we don't teach that".

The section has absolutely nothig whatsoever to do with the couplet she mentions here. In addition, the phrase is a "couplet" by definition, so it cannot be "relegated" to a couplet, as if English grammar bends to the will of President Hinckley. By the way, the King Follett Discourse (I can only assume that's what you refer to) is not what President Hinckley was talking about.

Mak, you're the one who brought up the KFD. I was simply telling you to stick with the canon. Actually, I believe that's how I said it: stick with the canon. The KFD is NOT doctrinal, and has no bearing on deification. And you'd know that, had you read my comments with anything remotely resembling an open mind.

She finishes with this:

Actually, the presence of such non-doctrinal essentially pagan beliefs, such as these three and others that you don't mention, in our belief systems tells me that Joseph not only didn't have a clue what he was preaching, but had lost his revelatory foundation. His one claim to revelation was the Book of Mormon. It makes me wonder if his connection with God was severed from God's end because of the whole Fanny business. Oliver may have been right.

What I presented is doctrine, and my paper shows that they are actually not pagan. Here Harmony simply reasserts her original position without addressing any evidence or even manifesting any cognition of it.

No, that is not doctrine, mak. And if you think it is, you are so far off the mark as to be off in left field. Your first task might be to figure out exactly what IS doctrine, and go from there. Stick with the canon.

Harmony, you claim mature peopel can take criticism. I have taken it repeatedly and I have seen no one else on this board take it, especially you.

I take criticism repeatedly; a case in point would be the thread which contains my experience on FAIR. you said I broke the rules. I agreed with you, after you explained what you meant. How is that not accepting criticism?

When I put a paper on the table, you can make that claim. Until then, you asked for comments on an open thread. I gave them. You didn't like my comments and asked me to leave. I did. You came to my thread and are now asking me for comments again? Why? Do you think I'll have changed my mind about your paper since last night?

You're being remarkably hypocritical and your ego's self-defense mechanism is bringing the level of your debate way down. I would love an honest and sincere response to my points above, but if all you have to say is that I'm wrong on all counts then I'd rather just leave this board. You make this a remarkably close-minded place to be.

Oh, so In other words, if I disagree with you, I am being close-minded, but if you disagree with me, you're just going to leave? Uh huh. I see.

Delivery of the criticism can influence whether or not the criticism is accepted or not, even though whether the delivery is friendly or less-than-friendly, the information within the criticism has the same value. For example, on the thread about early church history, I made a comment about the lack of the word "some" in a sentence. This was met with resistence from the owner of the thread. A very similiar observation was made by Bond; the thread owner did not meet this observation with the same resistence. An almost identical comment with mine was made by Liz, about the same lack of "some", with the added weight that she is a college teacher. No resistence as of yet to Liz's comment. Thus we see a pattern: virtually identical criticism is accepted from some and resisted from others, based on who it is who delivers the message. Thus, it's not the message that's important to this unnamed poster; it's the messenger and the tone. The inability to accept criticism from all sources often results in a FARMS-style presentation, one-sided and incomplete.

Notice all of the examples of correct behavior flow from harmony, while the incorrect behavior never originates with her, but always turns her into the victim.

You want me to use a different example? I've got some dillies, using Juliann.

The ability to accept criticism, even from people who aren't traditional supporters, is a sign of academic maturity.

Harmony, you have yet to accept a single word of my criticisms of your arguments, and yet I've accepted several of your criticisms, and thanked you for them. In addition to this fact, you have failed to acknowledge in any capacity whatsoever that I have ceded some of your points.

[/quote]

I accepted your comments about my experience on FAIR. I think your argument just bit the dust, becaues of that.

[_maklelan]

Yeah, I'm outta here.

[_Gazelam]

I think the key is to criticise without being contentious. Constructive criticism? This rule mainly appplies to Mormons (TBM) as expressed in the scriptures:

3 Nephi 11:29-30
29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.
30 Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.

I myself am guilty of this, as Misery and Scratch will testify of. The point is that the Spirit will not hang around if anger and contention is in the air, and the Spirit is needed if the gospel is to be discussed.

D&C 42:14
14 And the Spirit shall be given unto you by the prayer of faith; and if ye receive not the Spirit ye shall not teach.

How many of us (TBM) pray before responding to important gospel discussions on these boards? I don't always, but I should.

Gaz

[_Sam Harris]

Delivery of the criticism can influence whether or not the criticism is accepted or not, even though whether the delivery is friendly or less-than-friendly, the information within the criticism has the same value. For example, on the thread about early church history, I made a comment about the lack of the word "some" in a sentence. This was met with resistence from the owner of the thread. A very similiar observation was made by Bond; the thread owner did not meet this observation with the same resistence. An almost identical comment with mine was made by Liz, about the same lack of "some", with the added weight that she is a college teacher. No resistence as of yet to Liz's comment. Thus we see a pattern: virtually identical criticism is accepted from some and resisted from others, based on who it is who delivers the message. Thus, it's not the message that's important to this unnamed poster; it's the messenger and the tone. The inability to accept criticism from all sources often results in a FARMS-style presentation, one-sided and incomplete.

The ability to accept criticism, even from people who aren't traditional supporters, is a sign of academic maturity. Many of our LDS scholars lack that ability, even long after they pass their thesis defense. The siege mentality that underlies our traditional isolation and lack of interaction with non-LDS scholars supports this lack. Hopefully as Mormon Studies moves out of our traditional isolation and into mainstream academia we can remedy both our lack of interaction and our inability to accept criticism.

Not sure why some people act in this way. Maybe traditional conservative LDS have yet to come to grips with the idea that there may be a more liberal form of LDS religion and that the LDS viewpoint is not one homogenous belief, but many different views unique to each different person.

Either way, a person should be able to criticize, critique, and examine there own belief system according to their own conscience. A person may not agree with all points and doctrine within a certain religion, yet still agree with the majority of the doctine and culture and thus still be a member of that religion and community.

Bond

If we never ask questions, we never get any answers.

[_Sam Harris]

One point that I would like to make about criticism is that even though we ask for it, sometimes it is hard to accept, even when being given in a constructive way.

There is a vulnerability involved in putting your work, or "your baby" out on the table, exposed for people to pick apart.

In addition to teaching, I have also written professionally for a magazine for the past seven years. It's still difficult at times to receive constructive criticism from my editor when I've completed an article that I view as "perfect". LOL

I think it's part of human nature.

Very true, Liz. But to be a little literal here, if I had a "baby", and that baby was badly behaved, I'd want to know. I take care of two such babies, and their mother thinks their potty attitudes are so cute...either that or she just doesn't realize how they look to the outside world.

If there's a booger hanging out of my nose, please tell me. If my fly is down, please tell me. I might be embarrassed, and maybe even a bit resentful of your pointing it out at first, but later on if I'm half the person I claim to be, I'll be grateful.