What good does it do to criticize?

[_charity]

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.

I really don't remember how I heard about it. The point was we all knew, and why humiliate someone worse than he was already. Just for sport? Revenge? Anyone I talked to about it, was just very sad.

[Guest]

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

Nothing but free argument, raillery and even ridicule will preserve the purity of religion.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush. 21 April 1803, quoted from Roche, OIA, ed. The Jeffersonian Bible (1964) p. 348

Charity, are you criticizing our feedback?

Every fifth post of yours contains the threat that we will all find out that you were right when we die and we'll be sorry. Is that feedback or are you pronouncing judgment?

No, of course you're not, god is. So is god a critic or is it that when we die we will all stand before his great bar of feedback?

Authoritarian religions, like yours, are based on the idea of sending out "prophets" to warn the world. Are they just preaching god's feedback? No?

So it's okay to criticize if you believe (sorry--if you KNOW) you are doing it on god's behalf? This is the nature of your religious morality. It is based purely in criticism, even though you would like to call it love.

Don't you have something better to do than to sit around all day criticizing critics? Oh, you think you are doing the world a service by pointing out all the "puffery."

Yours is a game of semantics. You redefine colloquial language in order to give it specialized meaning, which serves only to create doubt. This is how apologetics works--through doubt. If you can create enough doubt about the meaning of the words that we use then you can maintain faith.

I believe most people see right through you and I also think that there is a part of you which knows that your arguments are generally ridiculous, but you have fun doing it anyway and you like your faith, so why not defend it. I am glad that your faith benefits you.

I know you know that not ALL criticism is bad, but you want to define it that way so you can defend a ridiculous position. Keep on going. I for one am grateful that there are people like you around because your polemics validate the critics of the church.

Keep up the good work.

There's some feedback for you.[/b]

[_BishopRic]

I really don't remember how I heard about it. The point was we all knew, and why humiliate someone worse than he was already. Just for sport? Revenge? Anyone I talked to about it, was just very sad.

As usual, you miss the point.

PHD was a VERY influential speaker to the members in the 70s. I was the Salt Lake Valley HS seminary president at the time, and we were continuously getting requests for him to speak at our firesides and S-Day events. Many "testimonies" were established by listening to his talks and reading his books. Church leaders often taught that the spirit was strong when he spoke, and we were to know that it was an indicator of the truthfulness of the gospel.

Now, I don't know where you were in the 70s Charity, but Elder Dunn was a "Mormon superstar" in Utah, and anybody around here knows that. So when it was revealed (If I recall correctly, by the Tanners at UTLM), that his motivational, faith-promoting stories were false, it created quite a bit of discussion about what the "spirit" really was telling us back then...and the cog-dis was significant for many.

The church made a choice not to bring it up to the members in any official way. It had nothing to do with "sport" or "revenge" against anybody. It was about properly educating members regarding spiritual witness and the necessity for honesty and integrity.

It failed to do that, and many of us have learned on our own what the truth about the goals of LDS Inc really are...put on a good front to save face, even if you have to tell a few lies....

[_rcrocket]

I really don't remember how I heard about it. The point was we all knew, and why humiliate someone worse than he was already. Just for sport? Revenge? Anyone I talked to about it, was just very sad.

As usual, you miss the point.

PHD was a VERY influential speaker to the members in the 70s. I was the Salt Lake Valley HS seminary president at the time, and we were continuously getting requests for him to speak at our firesides and S-Day events. Many "testimonies" were established by listening to his talks and reading his books. Church leaders often taught that the spirit was strong when he spoke, and we were to know that it was an indicator of the truthfulness of the gospel.

Now, I don't know where you were in the 70s Charity, but Elder Dunn was a "Mormon superstar" in Utah, and anybody around here knows that. So when it was revealed (If I recall correctly, by the Tanners at UTLM), that his motivational, faith-promoting stories were false, it created quite a bit of discussion about what the "spirit" really was telling us back then...and the cog-dis was significant for many.

The church made a choice not to bring it up to the members in any official way. It had nothing to do with "sport" or "revenge" against anybody. It was about properly educating members regarding spiritual witness and the necessity for honesty and integrity.

It failed to do that, and many of us have learned on our own what the truth about the goals of LDS Inc really are...put on a good front to save face, even if you have to tell a few lies....

Yeah, I see your point. When I got to the part about Joshua believing the lies the Gideonites told him, I thought -- my goodness, where in the hell is religion?

[_charity]

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

Nothing but free argument, raillery and even ridicule will preserve the purity of religion.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush. 21 April 1803, quoted from Roche, OIA, ed. The Jeffersonian Bible (1964) p. 348

Charity, are you criticizing our feedback?

Every fifth post of yours contains the threat that we will all find out that you were right when we die and we'll be sorry. Is that feedback or are you pronouncing judgment?

No, of course you're not, god is. So is god a critic or is it that when we die we will all stand before his great bar of feedback?

Authoritarian religions, like yours, are based on the idea of sending out "prophets" to warn the world. Are they just preaching god's feedback? No?

So it's okay to criticize if you believe (sorry--if you KNOW) you are doing it on god's behalf? This is the nature of your religious morality. It is based purely in criticism, even though you would like to call it love.

Don't you have something better to do than to sit around all day criticizing critics? Oh, you think you are doing the world a service by pointing out all the "puffery."

Yours is a game of semantics. You redefine colloquial language in order to give it specialized meaning, which serves only to create doubt. This is how apologetics works--through doubt. If you can create enough doubt about the meaning of the words that we use then you can maintain faith.

I believe most people see right through you and I also think that there is a part of you which knows that your arguments are generally ridiculous, but you have fun doing it anyway and you like your faith, so why not defend it. I am glad that your faith benefits you.

I know you know that not ALL criticism is bad, but you want to define it that way so you can defend a ridiculous position. Keep on going. I for one am grateful that there are people like you around because your polemics validate the critics of the church.

Keep up the good work.

There's some feedback for you.[/b]

Amantha, you can look up the word in the dicitonary if you want to. I use Standard English. Criticism, by defintion stems from judgement. We are told NOT to judge. That's the definition and usage.

Your assumptions about God, prophets, and my feelings about my relgion, are in error. That's feeback. Notice I didn't tell you you were stupid or ignorant.

[_Doctor Steuss]

[...]So when it was revealed (If I recall correctly, by the Tanners at UTLM[...]

It was "revealed" by Lynn Packer.

[_Mercury]

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?

This reminds me of heroine addicts wondering why people will not "just get off their back and stop hassling them".

[_amantha]

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

Nothing but free argument, raillery and even ridicule will preserve the purity of religion.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush. 21 April 1803, quoted from Roche, OIA, ed. The Jeffersonian Bible (1964) p. 348

Charity, are you criticizing our feedback?

Every fifth post of yours contains the threat that we will all find out that you were right when we die and we'll be sorry. Is that feedback or are you pronouncing judgment?

No, of course you're not, god is. So is god a critic or is it that when we die we will all stand before his great bar of feedback?

Authoritarian religions, like yours, are based on the idea of sending out "prophets" to warn the world. Are they just preaching god's feedback? No?

So it's okay to criticize if you believe (sorry--if you KNOW) you are doing it on god's behalf? This is the nature of your religious morality. It is based purely in criticism, even though you would like to call it love.

Don't you have something better to do than to sit around all day criticizing critics? Oh, you think you are doing the world a service by pointing out all the "puffery."

Yours is a game of semantics. You redefine colloquial language in order to give it specialized meaning, which serves only to create doubt. This is how apologetics works--through doubt. If you can create enough doubt about the meaning of the words that we use then you can maintain faith.

I believe most people see right through you and I also think that there is a part of you which knows that your arguments are generally ridiculous, but you have fun doing it anyway and you like your faith, so why not defend it. I am glad that your faith benefits you.

I know you know that not ALL criticism is bad, but you want to define it that way so you can defend a ridiculous position. Keep on going. I for one am grateful that there are people like you around because your polemics validate the critics of the church.

Keep up the good work.

There's some feedback for you.[/b]

Amantha, you can look up the word in the dicitonary if you want to. I use Standard English. Criticism, by defintion stems from judgement. We are told NOT to judge. That's the definition and usage.

Your assumptions about God, prophets, and my feelings about my relgion, are in error. That's feeback. Notice I didn't tell you you were stupid or ignorant.

You are in error. Your assumptions about your spiritual witness are in error--that is certain. I never called you stupid or ignorant but in your sneaky way, you just called me stupid and ignorant.

Your use of the dictionary and English is designed to obfuscate and I think you know it. You are fooling no one but yourself.

[_BishopRic]

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?

This reminds me of heroine addicts wondering why people will not "just get off their back and stop hassling them".

Yes, most of us exmos have Mormon family members, neighbors and friends. Nehor is right -- we aren't going to re-join, but we would like TBMs to recognize that outsiders are equally worthy people. Until that happens, there will never be true, unconditional love and acceptance. The way we choose to promote that is to point out the inconsistencies of teachings...someday a light may go off, and they will see that we are all good people, Mormon or not!

[_skippy the dead]

Amantha, you can look up the word in the dicitonary if you want to. I use Standard English. Criticism, by defintion stems from judgement. We are told NOT to judge. That's the definition and usage.

Your assumptions about God, prophets, and my feelings about my relgion, are in error. That's feeback. Notice I didn't tell you you were stupid or ignorant.

First of all, please see my post above about your word choice. I'd be interested in your response to my points.

Second, I call BS on your simplistic statement that "We are told NOT to judge." Please see:

Sometimes people feel that it is wrong to judge others in any way. While it is true that we should not condemn others or judge them unrighteously, we will need to make judgments of ideas, situations, and people throughout our lives. The Lord has given many commandments that we cannot keep without making judgments. For example, He has said: "Beware of false prophets. . . . Ye shall know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:15–16) and "Go ye out from among the wicked" (D&C 38:42). We need to make judgments of people in many of our important decisions, such as choosing friends, voting for government leaders, and choosing a spouse.

The Lord gave a warning to guide us in our judgment of others: "With what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother: Let me pull the mote out of thine eye—and behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother's eye" (3 Nephi 14:2–5).

In this scripture passage the Lord teaches that a fault we see in another is often like a tiny speck in that person's eye, compared to our own faults, which are like an enormous beam in our eyes. Sometimes we focus on others' faults when we should instead be working to improve ourselves.

Our righteous judgments about others can provide needed guidance for them and, in some cases, protection for us and our families. We should approach any such judgment with care and compassion. As much as we can, we should judge people's situations rather than judging the people themselves. Whenever possible, we should refrain from making judgments until we have an adequate knowledge of the facts. And we should always be sensitive to the Holy Spirit, who can guide our decisions. Alma's counsel to his son Corianton is a helpful reminder: "See that you are merciful unto your brethren; deal justly, judge righteously, and do good continually" (Alma 41:14).

See also Charity; Forgiveness; Love; Mercy

—See True to the Faith (2004), 90–91

You are not told "not to judge".

Judgment is an inherent necessity among humans. You are simply twisting words and actions to suit your narrow needs.