DiscussMormonism.com

The statement supposedly by Elder Dallin Oakes--"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true."--is being used in a sig line. There is no source cited, so I don't know if it is correct or not. But ASSUMING it is correct, I would like to discuss the idea.

We can limit this to criticism of Church leaders, or expand it to include criticism of family members, co-workers, etc. This is my take:

Criticism does no good for these reasons:

1. The critic is placing him/herself in an "exalted" position, saying "I know better than you do. You are wrong and I am right."
2. In most instances, as soon as you tell someone they are wrong, they get defensive.
3. Most criticism does not result in change that the critic wants.
4. Criticism creates hard feelings in the criticized.
5. Criticism creates arrogance in the critic.

Scenario #1. There is a ward activity you didn't like. The planned talent show was a flop, the food was not tasty. It wasn't very well attended. So you start criticizing it. The criticism won't change the ward activity. It happened. It will make the activity committee members unhappy. It will make you look like an insensitive complainer.

Scenario #2. One of your friends has "fallen upon hard times." He goes to the bishop for help. He later tells you that the bishop was not sympathetic, told him to get his act together and straighten up. Your friend is really upset with the bishop. So you tell other ward members you don't think the bishop was inspired at all. The criticism of the bishop doesn't help your friend. It doesn't make the bishop "more inspired." The criticism sets you on a path that could eventually lead you out of the Church.

This really should go without saying; however, since you started this thread, I guess it doesn't: without criticism (either from yourself or others) there is no way to personally grow. How can you fix something going forward if you don't know what to fix? If you don't learn from your mistakes, you might as well jump off a tall building because you're pretty much dead anyway.

Perhaps you're talking more about how criticism is delivered rather than the need for criticism itself. That's an entirely different topic.

Did you give all your students "A"s, Charity?

Why not give constructive criticism? Aren't there times when this is appropriate?

charity wrote:The statement supposedly by Elder Dallin Oakes--"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true."--is being used in a sig line. There is no source cited, so I don't know if it is correct or not. But ASSUMING it is correct, I would like to discuss the idea.

The source is an interview with Elder Oaks in the PBS special on "The Mormons" which aired in recent months.

http://www.pbs.org/Mormons/

The exact quote from Dallin Oaks is, "It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true."

charity wrote:The statement supposedly by Elder Dallin Oakes--"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true."--is being used in a sig line. There is no source cited, so I don't know if it is correct or not. But ASSUMING it is correct, I would like to discuss the idea.

We can limit this to criticism of Church leaders, or expand it to include criticism of family members, co-workers, etc. This is my take:

Criticism does no good for these reasons:

As Moniker asked above, do you give all your students A's and do they always score 100% on their tests with you? If not, then you have criticized them, haven't you?

charity wrote:1. The critic is placing him/herself in an "exalted" position, saying "I know better than you do. You are wrong and I am right."

No. All it says is "Look what you've done. What you stated here is something else entirely.

charity wrote:2. In most instances, as soon as you tell someone they are wrong, they get defensive.

Depends on how you tell them. Depends on what advice (or not) you give them afterwards. That is generally true, but I live by the addage:

"The Truth shall set you free, even if it gets you mad first!"

charity wrote:3. Most criticism does not result in change that the critic wants.

Poor criticism, just saying "You're wrong you moron" will not. Constructive comments, generally will. Though I know a few people who need the 2x4 method of delivering "constructive comments".

charity wrote:4. Criticism creates hard feelings in the criticized.

In most cases, I don't care. If I criticize my daughters for poor grades and offer them a solution and they get over the "hard feelings" and do better in school, the "hard feelings" they had because I grounded them from going out with their friends that night, well, I'll get past that really easily.

charity wrote:5. Criticism creates arrogance in the critic.

Not true as it is not always the case. It is case by case. The critic who becomes arrogant is arrogant because they already are so. Their critics add nothing to their basic personallity as an arrogant twit.

charity wrote:Scenario #1. There is a ward activity you didn't like. The planned talent show was a flop, the food was not tasty. It wasn't very well attended. So you start criticizing it. The criticism won't change the ward activity. It happened. It will make the activity committee members unhappy. It will make you look like an insensitive complainer.

Especailly if you were asked to help and you didn't bother lifting a finger. Though there are times, like say the heirarchy has planned an event every night at the ward (woe to those who don't go). Now here's a time where criticism of planning ward activities that interfere with family life is totally justified. The person who plans all of these events has no regard for others and should be brought back to reality.

charity wrote:Scenario #2. One of your friends has "fallen upon hard times." He goes to the bishop for help. He later tells you that the bishop was not sympathetic, told him to get his act together and straighten up. Your friend is really upset with the bishop. So you tell other ward members you don't think the bishop was inspired at all. The criticism of the bishop doesn't help your friend. It doesn't make the bishop "more inspired." The criticism sets you on a path that could eventually lead you out of the Church.

I won't touch this one. The temptation is too great.

But criticism, where it is deserved, is as "Some Schmo" pointed out, "a way to help people grow"

charity wrote:The statement supposedly by Elder Dallin Oakes--"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true."--is being used in a sig line. There is no source cited, so I don't know if it is correct or not. But ASSUMING it is correct, I would like to discuss the idea.

We can limit this to criticism of Church leaders, or expand it to include criticism of family members, co-workers, etc. This is my take:

Criticism does no good for these reasons:

1. The critic is placing him/herself in an "exalted" position, saying "I know better than you do. You are wrong and I am right."
2. In most instances, as soon as you tell someone they are wrong, they get defensive.
3. Most criticism does not result in change that the critic wants.
4. Criticism creates hard feelings in the criticized.
5. Criticism creates arrogance in the critic.

Scenario #1. There is a ward activity you didn't like. The planned talent show was a flop, the food was not tasty. It wasn't very well attended. So you start criticizing it. The criticism won't change the ward activity. It happened. It will make the activity committee members unhappy. It will make you look like an insensitive complainer.

Scenario #2. One of your friends has "fallen upon hard times." He goes to the bishop for help. He later tells you that the bishop was not sympathetic, told him to get his act together and straighten up. Your friend is really upset with the bishop. So you tell other ward members you don't think the bishop was inspired at all. The criticism of the bishop doesn't help your friend. It doesn't make the bishop "more inspired." The criticism sets you on a path that could eventually lead you out of the Church.

Without criticism, there is unlikely to be change. Powerful, insular, bureaucratic organizations are not the most highly reflective entities on earth. Without criticism, without persons holding an organization's, and its leaders, feet to the fire, they often have little incentive to change. Criticism, and the freedom to voice it, are, in fact, absolutely necessary and serve, on balance, a highly positive role. How much social progress do you think there would have been over time without criticism relative to what there's been?

People who do dumb, foolish, unkind, insensitive things deserve to be criticized, and they should not be shielded from criticism (and accountability) because of some ill-conceived ethos that brands all criticism as bad and unproductive.

Sure, people can be and are overly critical. Sometimes it doesn't really help. But in the grand scheme of things, we are much better off for it than we would be without it.

charity wrote:The statement supposedly by Elder Dallin Oakes--"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true."--is being used in a sig line. There is no source cited, so I don't know if it is correct or not. But ASSUMING it is correct, I would like to discuss the idea.

If this had always been the case, then no change would ever happen. Martin Luther would never have criticized the Catholic Church. Moses would never have criticized Pharoah. Nothing would ever change.

We can limit this to criticism of Church leaders, or expand it to include criticism of family members, co-workers, etc.

Well, we sometimes include family members and ward members. Does that count?

This is my take:

Criticism does no good for these reasons:

1. The critic is placing him/herself in an "exalted" position, saying "I know better than you do. You are wrong and I am right."

Well, in the example of church leaders that you used in the beginning, just what do you think Elder Oaks is doing? Humbling himself below the members? Yeah, right. He's "exalted" himself, telling us all he's above criticism because of his calling. And that's pure bullshaloney.

2. In most instances, as soon as you tell someone they are wrong, they get defensive.

Of course they do. That defensiveness is driven by pride. And our leaders aren't supposed to have any, so they shouldn't get defensive. But they do, because they are proud. If they weren't proud, they'd welcome criticism, welcome suggestions, welcome others' ideas. We know they don't, and we know their most secret sin, because of what Elder Oaks said.

3. Most criticism does not result in change that the critic wants.

On the contrary, most change is a result of criticism. That is only logical. Change does not result from a clinging to the status quo. Change results because someone saw a better way to do something.

4. Criticism creates hard feelings in the criticized.

Again, that is a result of pride. Pride goeth before a fall. And the pride of the Brethren (not the Saints) keeps the LDS church from being God's true church.

5. Criticism creates arrogance in the critic.

So? That has nothing to do with making needed changes.

Scenario #1. There is a ward activity you didn't like. The planned talent show was a flop, the food was not tasty. It wasn't very well attended. So you start criticizing it. The criticism won't change the ward activity. It happened. It will make the activity committee members unhappy. It will make you look like an insensitive complainer.

Let me give you a true life scenario where I criticized something at a ward party, and offered a suggestion. We have an annual 24th of July celebration, with food and games and all kinds of fun stuff. This year, at the dinner, after the prayer was said, the ward members made a beeline for the food lines. I observed that our elderly were well to the back of the line and at the front was a crowd of teenagers. I took the ward activities director aside and pointed that out, and gently criticized those who allowed that to happen. She immediately understood exactly what I was saying, and agreed that that was entirely unacceptable. You see, she was teachable, humble, open to criticism and suggestion. At our ward dinner at Christmastime, the attendees were instructed that the elderly were going to go to the head of the buffet line, and everyone else could join in as soon as they'd served themselves. The elderly were surprised and delighted, and went through the line without being buffeted by pushing teenagers or having to wait until everyone else ate.

Yes, charity. Changes can be made as a result of criticism. Changes in the church have been made as a result of criticism on these very boards. You, of course, wouldn't acknowledge such a thing if it was sent out on a letter from the FP, but it's uncanny how we talk about things on these boards, and Voila! a change that was suggested here is made. ("principal" comes to mind).

guy sajer wrote:

charity wrote:The statement supposedly by Elder Dallin Oakes--"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true."--is being used in a sig line. There is no source cited, so I don't know if it is correct or not. But ASSUMING it is correct, I would like to discuss the idea.

We can limit this to criticism of Church leaders, or expand it to include criticism of family members, co-workers, etc. This is my take:

Criticism does no good for these reasons:

1. The critic is placing him/herself in an "exalted" position, saying "I know better than you do. You are wrong and I am right."
2. In most instances, as soon as you tell someone they are wrong, they get defensive.
3. Most criticism does not result in change that the critic wants.
4. Criticism creates hard feelings in the criticized.
5. Criticism creates arrogance in the critic.

Scenario #1. There is a ward activity you didn't like. The planned talent show was a flop, the food was not tasty. It wasn't very well attended. So you start criticizing it. The criticism won't change the ward activity. It happened. It will make the activity committee members unhappy. It will make you look like an insensitive complainer.

Scenario #2. One of your friends has "fallen upon hard times." He goes to the bishop for help. He later tells you that the bishop was not sympathetic, told him to get his act together and straighten up. Your friend is really upset with the bishop. So you tell other ward members you don't think the bishop was inspired at all. The criticism of the bishop doesn't help your friend. It doesn't make the bishop "more inspired." The criticism sets you on a path that could eventually lead you out of the Church.

Without criticism, there is unlikely to be change. Powerful, insular, bureaucratic organizations are not the most highly reflective entities on earth. Without criticism, without persons holding an organization's, and its leaders, feet to the fire, they often have little incentive to change. Criticism, and the freedom to voice it, are, in fact, absolutely necessary and serve, on balance, a highly positive role. How much social progress do you think there would have been over time without criticism relative to what there's been?

People who do dumb, foolish, unkind, insensitive things deserve to be criticized, and they should not be shielded from criticism (and accountability) because of some ill-conceived ethos that brands all criticism as bad and unproductive.

Sure, people can be and are overly critical. Sometimes it doesn't really help. But in the grand scheme of things, we are much better off for it than we would be without it.

In addition, when someone has erred (and thus criticism is justified), and that error affects others, advising the others of the error may be the right thing to do - depending, of course, on the severity of the consequences of the error.

LCD2YOU wrote:
As Moniker asked above, do you give all your students A's and do they always score 100% on their tests with you? If not, then you have criticized them, haven't you?

I have not criticized the student. Tests are merely consequences. If I say, "You have bad study habits, you aren't smart enough for this level class, you are too immature for college," that is criticism.

LCD2YOU wrote: All it says is "Look what you've done. What you stated here is something else entirely.

Not true. It is one thing to say to someone, "This is the result of what you did." (As in the example with the bishop, if you go to him and say "My friend felt he wasn't supported. He really has been trying to get himself together. Since I know him so well. . . ." ) and quite another to say, "You really botched this up."

LCD2YOU wrote:

charity wrote:2. In most instances, as soon as you tell someone they are wrong, they get defensive.

Depends on how you tell them. Depends on what advice (or not) you give them afterwards. That is generally true, but I live by the addage:

"The Truth shall set you free, even if it gets you mad first!"

I agree that how you say anything makes a difference. It is in the judging or not judging. Saying to the bishop, "This is what my friend felt after you spoke to him. " does not imply a judgement. You are not telling the bishop he was wrong. You are merely relaying information. As soon as you start to criticize, you have stopped relaying information. This is what happens with criticism. Feedback is generally great. Criticism is generally counter productive.

LCD2YOU wrote:

charity wrote:3. Most criticism does not result in change that the critic wants.

Poor criticism, just saying "You're wrong you moron" will not. Constructive comments, generally will. Though I know a few people who need the 2x4 method of delivering "constructive comments".

So you would go to the activities committee chairman and say, "Next time you plan a ward activity, you really ought to plan a better menu. And when you have a talent show, you really should have auditions first so we aren't stuck having to listen to Sister Blank sing and Brother Cypher tell that boring long story." ???

LCD2YOU wrote:

charity wrote:4. Criticism creates hard feelings in the criticized.

In most cases, I don't care. If I criticize my daughters for poor grades and offer them a solution and they get over the "hard feelings" and do better in school, the "hard feelings" they had because I grounded them from going out with their friends that night, well, I'll get past that really easily.

You really aren't getting the point here about criticism. When my kids got a bad grade, they were limited in their activities until they pulled the grade up. That is NOT criticism. That is behavioral consequences. Criticism is not saying, "You will be given a chance to concentrate more on your math, because you will not be allowed to talk to your friends on the phone after school until your homework is done." Criticism is saying, "You are so flighty! All you do is talk to your friends on the phone instead of doing your homework."

And you should be very concerned about hard feelings in your children. All that does is make the child rebellious. It also tears down the child's self esteem.

LCD2YOU wrote:

charity wrote:Scenario #1. There is a ward activity you didn't like. The planned talent show was a flop, the food was not tasty. It wasn't very well attended. So you start criticizing it. The criticism won't change the ward activity. It happened. It will make the activity committee members unhappy. It will make you look like an insensitive complainer.

Especailly if you were asked to help and you didn't bother lifting a finger. Though there are times, like say the heirarchy has planned an event every night at the ward (woe to those who don't go). Now here's a time where criticism of planning ward activities that interfere with family life is totally justified. The person who plans all of these events has no regard for others and should be brought back to reality.

How do you mean "woe to those who don't go?" The best feedback is simply not to attend. And your "every night" scenario doesn't wash in the Church. Lots of talks lately about limiting activities and meetings which take people away from family time.

LCD2YOU wrote:But criticism, where it is deserved, is as "Some Schmo" pointed out, "a way to help people grow"

Criticism doesn't, feedback does. Feedback is judgement free. Criticism is only judgement.

I know that often times when someone criticizes me, I had absolutely no idea that I was doing whatever it was. I'm glad that the person pointed it out, so that I became aware of it and was able to change and fix it.

Now, there are certainly times where a criticism is unwarranted. I'm sure that most fat people know they are fat. You don't need to walk up to them and say, "Hey, did you know you're fat??" However, if a fat person is wearing a belly shirt and letting it all hang out, then some constructive criticism might be welcomed.

In your case, you are talking about the leaders of the church. Do you really think they should be exempt from criticism? It has been proven time and time again that they can be, and often are, wrong. Why shouldn't we be able to criticize their words just as you might criticize others.

Let me ask you, Charity, did you criticize Oral Roberts and Jimmy Swaggart, or did you just accept that they were telling the truth and send them a blank check?

There seems to be a mentality that everyone else's leaders are fair game for criticisms, just not OUR leaders.