What good does it do to criticize?

[_Mercury]

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.

Little miss strawman strikes again.

I do not see you as a credible source of constructive conversation.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

The apostle Paul warns against bickering in the church. He counsels to be of one mind. And this is important. We see from the mainstream chruches just what bickering creates. It creates division and splits. Not healthy in my opinion. Now I don't believe that the GA was refering to constructive criticism where the spirit is present. But to the other kind, the more devisive form that creates bad feelings and ill intent.

Yeah, but that was just his opinion. Besides, the LDS church has had plenty of bickering over the years which created lots of splinter groups just like the mainstream churches. You're probably on to something here. Unquestioning obedience to the leaders prevents people from quitting the church and starting new churches. It protects the church. If only Joseph Smith's leaders had emphasised "being of one mind" to him, he might still be Methodist.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

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.

Scenerio #3. You are a Catholic. You find out some of the children in the congregation were abused by the priest. So you tell other members that you don't think the Priest is inspired at all. The criticism of the Priest doesn't help the abused children. It doesn't make the Priest "more inspired." The criticism sets you on a path that could eventually lead you out of the Catholic church. That evening while praying for guidance, 2 Mormon missionaries knock on your door. So you see, a little criticism led you away from the true Catholic church and into a dangerous cult.

[_LCD2YOU]

My bad! Sorry I was criticizing her.

[by the way, I'm not sure which "her" I was criticizing - Charity or Moniker. Doesn't really matter, I suppose, especially if both Charity & Moniker are Church Leaders. Regardless, everyone please accept my apology.]

It's great that we have such a good person as yourself, LCD2YOU, to look up to. You must be a Church Leader!

You won't ever catch me criticizing LCD2YOU.

Time you realized that! Bow to me or I shall taunt you a second (third, fourth, etc,) time! Look and marvel at my humility!

Why yes, I am a Church Elder! How'd you know?

;D

[_charity]

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.

I think this post includes most of what I wanted to see discussed with this thread.

1. Criticism and feedback are not the same thing. Criticism says "you are wrong, stupid, etc. . . " Feedback provides information to the person. Earlier in the thread I addressed this in regards to giving students grades. A grade is feeback on how much they know or don't know about the subject. It does not criticize. So, if a person points out to you that something you are doing has an effect that you did not intend or don't like, you can change it without having the sting of a denounciation.

2. Is criticism warranted? Like the fat person with a too tight shirt in your example. Do you think they don't know their belly is hanging out? This escaped their attention? So what is the criticism going to accomplish? Now, if your friend was heading out for a job interview in such a condition, you could provide feedback about appropriate dress for job interviews. But if you see someone on the street, do you walk over to the guy and say, "You really are grossing me out?"

3. Are Church leaders ever wrong? Being fallible men, I am sure they are at times. I personally believe that the LG model is correct. What if my bishop, or the stake president, or a General Authority said he believed in the Hemispheric model? Do I publish a piece in the ward newsletter about how that doesn't stand up to the evidence? Why?

If I think I have not been given proper counsel and advice by a bishop, I go to the stake president. I don't tell everyone in my hearing what an idiot the bishop was.

Would I criticize a Church leader who behaved like Oral Roberts or Jimmy Swaggart? No. I just wouldn't send them any checks. I wouldn't vote to sustain the person. In fact, I would vote in opposition. But rant about it? No.

[_the road to hana]

Would I criticize a Church leader who behaved like Oral Roberts or Jimmy Swaggart? No. I just wouldn't send them any checks. I wouldn't vote to sustain the person. In fact, I would vote in opposition. But rant about it? No.

So I guess you wouldn't be supportive of Martin Luther nailing his 95 theses to the church door.

[_BishopRic]

Would I criticize a Church leader who behaved like Oral Roberts or Jimmy Swaggart? No. I just wouldn't send them any checks. I wouldn't vote to sustain the person. In fact, I would vote in opposition. But rant about it? No.

So I guess you wouldn't be supportive of Martin Luther nailing his 95 theses to the church door.

...or Martin Luther KING doing the work he did?

[_Scottie]

I think I see what you are getting at, Charity, however, I think you are oversimplifying the terms.

You seem to think that criticism is only used in a harmful, hurtful way where feedback is always used with love, caring and understanding.

In my mind, both criticism and feedback are methods used to point out individual flaws and possibly propose a way to rectify the flaw.

Perhaps you could help me clarify what you think the difference is between the terms here?

[_The Nehor]

Primary problem being that most of the Church's critics will never ally with us even if there is change....unless of course that change were the dismantling of the Church. Most are outside (spiritually if not physically) and are probably there to stay forever. Why do they want it to change if it will never satisfy them?

[_why me]

The apostle Paul warns against bickering in the church. He counsels to be of one mind. And this is important. We see from the mainstream chruches just what bickering creates. It creates division and splits. Not healthy in my opinion. Now I don't believe that the GA was refering to constructive criticism where the spirit is present. But to the other kind, the more devisive form that creates bad feelings and ill intent.

Yeah, but that was just his opinion. Besides, the LDS church has had plenty of bickering over the years which created lots of splinter groups just like the mainstream churches. You're probably on to something here. Unquestioning obedience to the leaders prevents people from quitting the church and starting new churches. It protects the church.

Lets consider the church to be family. When the family bickers a divorce can happen. And that is not a good thing for the church. And that was Paul's point. He also saw splinter groups in the christian community. He mentions that some were following this individual and some were following that individual. And what did he counsel? To be at one in Christ and stick together. And so, the GA's comments were right on target.

See 1 Corinthians 3