What good does it do to criticize?

[_Scottie]

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.

Unless it was Joseph Smith that was doing the bickering and "divorced" himself and started the one true church. Then it's ok, right?

[_why me]

Unless it was Joseph Smith that was doing the bickering and "divorced" himself and started the one true church. Then it's ok, right?

Well, Joseph Smith did have some issues as a boy with the faiths of his time. This is why he prayed for guidance. But I don't see him as part of any faith. He was soft on Methodism but I cannot say that he was an active member of that faith. Also, he did not stay in a church and bicker. Neither did his mom and dad. When the time came, they just left and joined their son, Joseph Smith.

[_BishopRic]

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.

I think a better approach is to see the human race as "family," no matter what your beliefs are. And despite the fact that Paul pretty much started his version of Christianity (the one that "stuck"), he was but one man, with one religion. And fortunately, as we've learned better through time, we can now live together with each other no matter if we're "religious," or just choose to live the Golden Rule.

[_The Nehor]

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.

I think a better approach is to see the human race as "family," no matter what your beliefs are. And despite the fact that Paul pretty much started his version of Christianity (the one that "stuck"), he was but one man, with one religion. And fortunately, as we've learned better through time, we can now live together with each other no matter if we're "religious," or just choose to live the Golden Rule.

When did we learn how to do this whole living together thing and when does implementation start? ;)

[_skippy the dead]

I think Charity is conflating criticism (to consider the merits and demerits of and judge accordingly, or to find fault with or point out the faults of) with lambasting (to attack verbally). Criticism itself is a neutral act. One can evaluate a poorly planned and executed ward function (as given in her example) with the result that those responsible learn from their errors and correct them the next time around. There is nothing wrong with it. In fact, it should be encouraged. For instance, at one company I worked at, we conducted a "post mortem" at the conclusion of each project - the "criticism" we put forth resulted in a correction of those errors for the next project. A ward party could very well benefit from criticism, so that people aren't stuck with crummy events.

Oaks' quote "It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true" is certainly arrogant and, I believe, contrary to the traditional culture of the church. Especially if a criticism is true, it needs to be expressed. The leaders of the church are not above reproach. Granted, if I, as a member of the church, were to criticize a leader's actions to members of my own congregation, it may not necessarily serve any purpose with respect to that leader (i.e., my comments may never reach his ears), but sometimes those local discussions can lead to a way to actually deal with the situation.

For instance - while in law school, I took out my endowments (I was happily single). The first thing I noticed was how uncomfortable the garment tops, with their "chest pockets" were for flatter-chested gals like myself, especially under a bra. I "criticized" the design of the top with some of my female friends, and we collectively discussed better alternatives. One day, Aileen Clyde, from the Relief Society General Society met with some of us women at the law school (can't recall the reason, but there we were), and based on the conversations I'd had with my friends (wherein we "criticized" those who designed those things), I actually brought it up to Ms. Clyde, and mentioned that a smooth, camisole-like top, without the "pockets" would be muchly appreciated. And although I have since stopped wearing the things, my understanding is that such a garment is now in existence (yes, this "apostate" is claiming credit for it, if only partially in jest).

The lesson? My "criticism" of the designer of the garment and my willing to "criticize" such design may have done something positive.

Now let's abstract the principle. Let's say that I have a criticism about Elder So-and-so, a General Authority. Let's say that I believe that he has hidden some of his past deeds that would impact his service as a GA. I verbalize that criticism to some of my local ward members. There are different possible outcomes - (1) The people I talk to can discuss my criticism with me, and show me that I was erroneous. In this case, I no longer harbor the criticism (which I otherwise may have done), and all is well in Zion; or (2) The people I talk to discuss the criticism with me, and it turns out that it is a shared concern. We can then decide if there's something that should or even could be done, and whether we should do it. In this case, we discover the "criticism" (that he is harboring some past misdeeds and is untrustworthy) is true. Shouldn't we express that, so that others can determine if it affects them? Knowledge is power, one that everybody should avail themselves of.

Why must members check in their critical evaluation skills when it comes to the leaders?

[_BishopRic]

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.

I think a better approach is to see the human race as "family," no matter what your beliefs are. And despite the fact that Paul pretty much started his version of Christianity (the one that "stuck"), he was but one man, with one religion. And fortunately, as we've learned better through time, we can now live together with each other no matter if we're "religious," or just choose to live the Golden Rule.

When did we learn how to do this whole living together thing and when does implementation start? ;)

You know, that Adam guy started it...

[_Scottie]

...The first thing I noticed was how uncomfortable the garment tops, with their "chest pockets" were for flatter-chested gals like myself, especially under a bra. ...

Wait a sec....you're a GAL????

Again, my theory that the women of the board out-IQ and out-eloquence the men by 10-1 holds true and fast.

[_Pokatator]

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.

I hope seeing him say it directly is source enough.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=5oesBz7eWu8

[_charity]

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?

Criticism is not necessary for change. Anyone can see if something should be done differently and go about and do it. Tearing someone else down is not a necessary part of the process.

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.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

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.

Again, you can change things without criticizing.


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

Charity said, "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. 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. [/quote]

Elder Oakes was talking about what criticism does to the membership of the Church. He wasn't saying he was above criticism. He was talking about the effects of criticism on the members!

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.

Change results because someone saw a better way to do something and didn't waste a lot of his/her effort in complaining about what was wrong. They just went and did it better.

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.

Why do you bother being a member then?


I said, "Criticism creates arrogance in the critic." and you replied, "So? That has nothing to do with making needed changes."

We aren't talking about making changes. We are talking about whether or not to criticize. And if criticizing does increase arrogance, which has been demonstrated, the it certainly is something to consider. Arrogance takes a person further away from the Spirit.

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.

And if you had gently pointed out to the activities director that there was something needed, WITHOUT criticizing the ones who had allowed it to happen, wouldn't that have been a better course? Or did it make you feel superior to be able to show the activities director that you had a better idea than those in charge?

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).

You think that this message board (or any other anti-Mormon message board) caused that change? Now, I know what Dr. Shades won't allow smilies. I would have posted a whole line of ROFL.

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.

My definition is the dictionary defintion. Feeback is not criticism. It is a "report" of results. As in Harmony's example Seniors don't get up to the buffet. Nobody had anticpated that the teenagers would be rush ahead. Harmony provided both feedback and criticism of those who had not anticipated that occurance. How did criticizing help change the subsequent buffet lines? Couldn't Harmony have accomplished the same thing without criticizing?

Personalizatin does not have to occur. And it is not useful when it does.

Charity, perhaps you could explain what you think the difference between criticism and feedback is? I view them as interchangeable words.

Feedback is an objective report of the event. Criticism, by the dictinary definition, is an act of passing judgement. And we know that Church teachings are that we are not to judge.

BishopRic

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. [/quote]

I don't always agree with the way some posters reply on the MA&D board.

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?

The leaders of the Church, as all of us, are accountable to the Lord. The correction will come from that direction, not from the membership up.

I agree with Charity, but I think we need to get rid of ALL criticism.

YOu don't understand the difference between criticism and feedback. And that was just feedback for you, no criticism. If I had wanted to criticize, I would have said, "You idiot! You ought to know that feedback and criticism aren't the same thing."

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.

Free pass means nothing happens. I never said that. I don't donate to some charities because their ratio of overhead to charitable use is too high. They don't get a free pass. But I am not running around telling everyone I know what horrible people run XYZ charity. If I knew that a bishop was running around on his wife, I would go to the appropriate authorities, and I would raise my hand in opposition. But I wouldn't use up all my cell phone minutes calling everyone I knew.

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....

We all knew what had happened. It was no secret.

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?

Just wondering...

Clever, there Moniker. How about FEEDBACK.

why me wrote:
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.

This is an incorrect interpretation. Splinter groups have broken off, but that doesn't mean there was bickering IN the Church.

I think Elder Oaks said exactly what he meant to say. He wasn't saying that constructive criticism was alright. He was saying all criticism of church leaders is wrong. He was putting himself above the members. He and the other GAs give us all sorts of criticism and we're supposed to humbly take it and change our ways, but he thinks he and the other GAs are above listening to us. Well, I guess you know what some of us think of that.

You see criticism in instructions to live the laws and commandments of God? Interesting. And he never said anyone didn't do anything wrong. He said criticism is NOT constructive.

[_BishopRic]

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....

We all knew what had happened. It was no secret.

I'd laugh, but I don't think you're joking!

You may have "heard" about it through the relief society gossip, but was there ever an announcement?

I've been in SLC most of my life, and in local leadership callings for most of that Charity, and the way I heard about it was from the media.

That's the point! If an organization who professes to teach integrity and honesty presumes that the members will learn about negative events through th e gossip channels, rather than taking a stand and admitting that a leader was less than honest...well, that says loads, in my opinion.