What good does it do to criticize?

[_charity]

My intent was not to try to determine "how" to criticize, but to defend Elder Oakes' statement.

Why do you feel the need to defend Oaks's statement? Is it your apologetic instincts kicking in? Do you have any defense for Hinckley's statement in my sig?

Actually, I started this thread because you use the statement in your sig line. And with your screen name and posting history I took it that you had it there to ridicule it.

What is wrong with President Hinckley's statement. For most members of the Church, who have not had a personal visitation, that statement would be true. I haven't seen God and Jesus. So I read Joseph Smith's account of the first vision and I get some information about them.

[_Moniker]

Some young woman engage in promiscuous sexual activity trying to find love and acceptance.

Part of the problem with your assertions is that you consider someone who has had THREE sexual partners to be promiscuous.

In the original thread, about Utah rape stats, she didn't even give a number. Apparently a depressed woman that has 3 sexual partners 'cause her daddy was off doing something else is neurotic. If I had known during that thread discussion that Charity considered 3 to be promiscuous I would have realized that she's just stating this stuff because of some moral prudishness.

[_charity]

Some young woman engage in promiscuous sexual activity trying to find love and acceptance.

Part of the problem with your assertions is that you consider someone who has had THREE sexual partners to be promiscuous.

In the original thread, about Utah rape stats, she didn't even give a number. Apparently a depressed woman that has 3 sexual partners 'cause her daddy was off doing something else is neurotic. If I had known during that thread discussion that Charity considered 3 to be promiscuous I would have realized that she's just stating this stuff because of some moral prudishness.

I didn't give a number this time. Please read my posts. I said that a number of years ago that would have been considered promiscuous, but NOW the threshhold was higher. I doubt the Lord has changed His standard, however. He says chastity before marriage, fidelity after. That really cuts down on the number of sexual partners.

[_Mercury]

beastie, can you focus on the discussion, or do you need to make this an ad hominem fallacy response?

If that were the case (which it is not) Beastie would just be following your lead.

Edit:

Ya hear me Hun?

[_beastie]

beastie, can you focus on the discussion, or do you need to make this an ad hominem fallacy response?

Fallacy? No, dear, no fallacy, because the personal analysis is extremely pertinent to the discussion. Simply discussing an individual's traits is not necessary an ad hom fallacy. It's only a fallacy when a personal attack is unrelated to the discussion and is simply used to discredit. For example, if two people were discussing Michael Quinn's claims about how the restoration of the MP appears to be retroactive without contemporary evidence of the event, and one of the individuals responded by talking about Quinn is gay, THAT is an ad hom fallacy.

But when you make the argument that "criticism is bad" and yet you engage in frequent criticism yourself, in addition to insults, it is precisely pertinent to the discussion.

[_beastie]

I didn't give a number this time. Please read my posts. I said that a number of years ago that would have been considered promiscuous, but NOW the threshhold was higher. I doubt the Lord has changed His standard, however. He says chastity before marriage, fidelity after. That really cuts down on the number of sexual partners.

In a past conversation, you stated that three or four would be pushing promiscuity. Are you denying this, or have you changed your mind?

Or, since the LORD has declared sex is sanctioned only within marriage, do you actually believe that any individual who has sex outside of marriage is promiscuous?

[_beastie]

I am defending the idea that Church members should not criticize the Church leaders. I don't criticize the Church leaders. No double standard.

So you've changed your mind? It's not that ALL criticism is bad anymore, but just criticism of one's leaders? (which, by the way, is the point I earlier made and you denied)

[_charity]

Fallacy? No, dear, no fallacy, because the personal analysis is extremely pertinent to the discussion. Simply discussing an individual's traits is not necessary an ad hom fallacy. It's only a fallacy when a personal attack is unrelated to the discussion and is simply used to discredit. For example, if two people were discussing Michael Quinn's claims about how the restoration of the MP appears to be retroactive without contemporary evidence of the event, and one of the individuals responded by talking about Quinn is gay, THAT is an ad hom fallacy.

So I may analyze posters here with regards to their reasons for posting, which are pertinent? That's good to know.

But when you make the argument that "criticism is bad" and yet you engage in frequent criticism yourself, in addition to insults, it is precisely pertinent to the discussion.

The criticism which is the topic here is of leaders, specifically, not of ideas.

Oh, and if I decide to insult posters, you will really know it. I have been extremely restrained. Especially in the face of what has been thrown at me.

In a past conversation, you stated that three or four would be pushing promiscuity. Are you denying this, or have you changed your mind?

2 or three, um, three or four is getting there. I never stated that it was my opinion that more than one was promiscuous.

Or, since the LORD has declared sex is sanctioned only within marriage, do you actually believe that any individual who has sex outside of marriage is promiscuous?

Once, you get to repent. Twice you don't. I assume you knew that already?

Quote:
I am defending the idea that Church members should not criticize the Church leaders. I don't criticize the Church leaders. No double standard.

So you've changed your mind? It's not that ALL criticism is bad anymore, but just criticism of one's leaders? (which, by the way, is the point I earlier made and you denied)

It is my opinion, backed up by psychologists, that criticism of people does not produce positive results. I think I can safely criticize "things." The CoC building in Independence, MO is really ugly.

[_harmony]

Once, you get to repent. Twice you don't.

Whoa. Where did that come from? I'd really like to see a reference for that, please. Because my understanding of the atonement is it's there to be used as many times as necessary.

[_charity]

Once, you get to repent. Twice you don't.

Whoa. Where did that come from? I'd really like to see a reference for that, please. Because my understanding of the atonement is it's there to be used as many times as necessary.

If a person has been excommunicated for adultery once, and then committ adultery a second time, they cannot be rebaptized and their blessings restored.

Doctrine and Covenants 42: 24-26 Thou shalt not commit adultery; and he that committeth adultery, and repenteth not, shall be cast out. But he that has committed adultery and repents with all his heart, and forsaketh it, and doeth it ano more, thou shalt forgive; But if he doeth it aagain, he shall not be forgiven, but shall be cast out.