charity wrote: Criticism doesn't, feedback does. Feedback is judgement free. Criticism is only judgement.
WTF??? Feedback is judgment free???
Implied in any type of feedback is some kind of judgment. I think what you mean is that feedback doesn't personalize the judgment, whereas criticism implies, more or less, personalization.
Both feeback and criticism imply and incorporate judgment, either can be constructive or destructive.
You're boostrapping your definitions to fit within your arguments.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
charity wrote: 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.
I actually agree with a lot of this Charity. But let me ask you to apply it in another sense. Let's look at many of the "popular" mopologists -- Pahoran, Selek, Coggins, Juliann, etc.. The MA&D board is the place where many questioning members go to get answers. Do you think the approach these guys take towards exmos/questioning mos is appropriate and helpful to the church?
I was astounded at the criticism and rudeness I observed there...all from the one place many are referred to to learn answers to difficult questions. I know if I were "on the fence," I would see their criticism as evidence that the church may NOT be Christian at all.
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.
It depends on the criticism. Leader that say they never should be criticized are setting them up in a position of lording over a body of people. Constructive and true criticism can be appropriate in keeping leader accountable to those they lead. and yes they should be accountable to those they lead expecially when they espouse the idea that they will never lead us astray.
If a leader lies or steals should they not be criticized for it?
If the cheat on their wife should they not be help accountable and criticized?
If they mismanage the funds given that they should be stewards over should they not be criticized?
If they teach false doctrine should they not be criticized?
I agree with Charity, but I think we need to get rid of ALL criticism. Not only is it wrong to criticize the leaders of the church, it is also wrong for church leaders to criticize the members. If I didn't do my home teaching last month. Don't criticize me for it. It will only make me feel bad. If I want to break the commandments by smoking weed and having gay sex with my dad's boss, I don't want the leaders criticizing my lifestyle. Criticism will only cause me bad feelings. They should mind their own business.
If I find out my friend is cheating on his wife, I should not take him aside and ciriticize him, for that wil only cause him to feel bad. Best to keep my mouth shut. If the president decides to nuke France for being a bunch of coffee drinking pansies, I don't want to hear any criticism from the French loving wussies in this country and around the world. He's the commander in chief. It's his decision, and any criticism from the citizens will only cause him to feel bad.
Teachers should no longer criticize sudents for poor work or no work. It only makes the kids feel bad. Let them work at their own pace using their own standards of quality.
I think we should ban movie critics like Roger Ebert. They only make directors and actors feel bad. In fact, I say we remove the whole freedom of speech thing from the constitution. It seems to encourage criticism. Wouldn't this country be better if everyone was required to constantly wear a smile and say nice things to each other. That would be paradise. In fact, I think that's what the millenium will be like. I can't wait.
Last edited by Guest on Thu Jan 10, 2008 5:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"We of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith." - Gordon B. Hinckley
"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true." - Dallin H. Oaks
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.
It depends on the criticism. Leader that say they never should be criticized are setting them up in a position of lording over a body of people. Constructive and true criticism can be appropriate in keeping leader accountable to those they lead. and yes they should be accountable to those they lead expecially when they espouse the idea that they will never lead us astray.
If a leader lies or steals should they not be criticized for it?
If the cheat on their wife should they not be help accountable and criticized?
If they mismanage the funds given that they should be stewards over should they not be criticized?
If they teach false doctrine should they not be criticized?
Why the free pass?
Related to why the free pass question, would Charity apply the same arguments to secular organizations?
Is she proposing a general philosophy that she thinks should be applied generally to all types of situations, or is this a situation specific philosophy that assumes privileged status for the Mormon Church and Mormon authority figures?
Would she, for example, propose this philosophy for political leaders? For corporate executives? For mullahs?
I am very, very worried about anyone who claims to be above criticism. This is all the more reason to scrutinze what they do and hold their feet to the fire.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
SatanWasSetUp wrote:I agree with Charity, but I think we need to get rid of ALL criticism. Not only is it wrong to criticize the leaders of the church, it is also wrong for church leaders to criticize the members. If I didn't do my home teaching last month. Don't criticize me for it. It will only make me feel bad. If I want to break the commandments by smoking weed and having gay sex with my dad's boss, I don't want the leaders criticizing my lifestyle. Criticism will only cause me bad feelings. They should mind their own business.
If I find out my friend is cheating on his wife, I should not take him aside and ciriticize him, for that wil only cause him to feel bad. Best to keep my mouth shut. If the president decides to nuke France for being a bunch of coffee drinking pansies, I don't want to hear any criticism from the French loving wussies in this country and around the world. He's the commander in chief. It's his decision, and any criticism from the citizens will only cause him to feel bad.
Teachers should no longer criticize sudents for poor work or no work. It only makes the kids feel bad. Let them work at their own pace using their own standards of quality.
I think we should ban movie critics like Roger Ebert. They only make directors and actors feel bad. In fact, I say we remove the whole freedom of speech thing from the constitution. It seems to encourage criticism. Wouldn't this country be better if everyone was required to constantly wear a smile and say nice things to each other. That would be paradise. In fact, I think that's what the millenium will be like. I can't wait.
LOL
Awesome.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
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.
Well written, guy. This trait is almost always used as a cult identifier.
Any dissent or questioning of the group's teachings is discouraged. Criticism in any form is seen as rebellion. There will be an emphasis on authority, unquestioning obedience and submission. This is vigilantly maintained.
"I think one of the great mysteries of the gospel is that anyone still believes it." Sethbag, MADB, Feb 22 2008
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.
It depends on the criticism. Leader that say they never should be criticized are setting them up in a position of lording over a body of people. Constructive and true criticism can be appropriate in keeping leader accountable to those they lead. and yes they should be accountable to those they lead expecially when they espouse the idea that they will never lead us astray.
If a leader lies or steals should they not be criticized for it?
If the cheat on their wife should they not be help accountable and criticized?
If they mismanage the funds given that they should be stewards over should they not be criticized?
If they teach false doctrine should they not be criticized?
Why the free pass?
Exactly! I think a place where the church made a PR mistake was regarding Paul Dunn's fabricated stories. Many of us old guys listened intently to his inspiring, motivational stories in the 70s. Many of us "felt the spirit" when he spoke.
Later, when it was shown that many of his stories were false and exaggerated, things were just pushed under the carpet and no discussion or announcement was given.
Wouldn't it have been better if the church would have made a statement such as "we have learned of this situation, and want to let the members know that honesty and integrity is more important than saving face, and we are disappointed to learn that Elder Dunn did what he did...."
But no. And some of us see this choice as part and parcel to what is most important to the church....
I do wonder if there is criticism (judgment) when one says that non-LDS have liquor cabinets in their home and this leads their children to dabble with drugs at a young age.
I do wonder if there is criticism (judgment) when one says that non-LDS may leave their children at home unattended and this leads to premarital sex.
I do wonder if there is criticism (judgment) when one says that women that have various sexual partners suffer from a mental disorder.
I do wonder if there is criticism (judgment) to say that women that stay with abusive spouses are "dumb".
I wonder if that criticism (judgment) could be given as "feedback" and done in a way in which the persons targeted don't feel gosh darnit to heck all bad about themselves when they hear it?