What good does it do to criticize?

[_SatanWasSetUp]

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."

OK. So to you we should not criticize, but giving feedback is ok. So if we take this back to your original point regarding Oaks's statement about criticizing church leaders. We should not criticize them even if the criticism is true. But what about giving feedback. Is it okay for us to give feedback to the church leaders if the feedback is true? So if my bishop says or does something that I think is incorrect, I'll just offer him some constructive feedback? If I don't agree with the prophet, I'll just offer him some feedback too, but since the brethren have told us that all questions for them must go through the local authorities, I'll take my feedback about the prophet to my bishop.

[_Doctor Steuss]

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!

Is pointing out the inconsistencies of teachings really the best way to promote unconditional love and acceptance (unless of course the teachings are inconsistent with unconditional love and acceptance...)?



“Be the change that you want to see in the world.” --Mohandas Gandhi

[_Scottie]

We are told NOT to judge.

No, we are told not to judge UNRIGHTEOUSLY.

We HAVE to judge others. Without judgment, this world would be in chaos.

[_BishopRic]

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!

Is pointing out the inconsistencies of teachings really the best way to promote unconditional love and acceptance (unless of course the teachings are inconsistent with unconditional love and acceptance...)?



“Be the change that you want to see in the world.” --Mohandas Gandhi

For me it was ( and I don't believe the church culture is really all about "unconditional anything" -- it's very conditional). On my journey, the inconsistencies finally exploded in my face and said "if the things you see aren't consistent, maybe the more serious teachings are wrong too." (you know, that whole Joseph's Myth thing....)

I think when the church is taken off its "one true church" pedestal, people can be seen as equal. Until than, it's impossible.

[_guy sajer]

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.

So people suddenly and spontaneously all decide that something is wrong and go about doing something about it? There’s never any reflection, any evaluation, any exercise in which people critically assess?
Have you ever actually spent any time in the world?
By the way, if people see something should be done differently, how do they know that? They exercised critical judgment, that’s how.

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.

Oh yes, this is great wisdom. So only perfect people have the right to criticize? Well, that makes a hell of a lot of sense. Some of the greatest social critics who have literally changed the world have been anything but perfect. Martin Luther King, for example, was a womanizing plagiarist, but this didn’t keep him from becoming a significant moral force in the world or diminish the value of his social criticisms.

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 feedback 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 definition. Feedback is not criticism. It is a "report" of results. As in Harmony's example, Seniors don't get up to the buffet. Nobody had anticipated that the teenagers would be rush ahead. Harmony provided both feedback and criticism of those who had not anticipated that occurrence. How did criticizing help change the subsequent buffet lines? Couldn't Harmony have accomplished the same thing without criticizing? [/quote]
Yes, you’re bootstrapping the definition. Thus we have things called “constructive criticism” and “negative feedback.” I think you must be the only one on the planet who things that feedback is judgment free.

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.

I wouldn’t gossip about the Bishop either. But I would tell other people if I thought a charity wasn’t using its funds wisely. The context of OP had to do with criticizing the brethren, so it’s a legitimate question for you to answer.
So, is Oaks correct? Should we not criticize the Brethren, even if it’s true?
Would you apply this same argument across the board? Why or why not?

[_Bond...James Bond]

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."

You realize this is the mirror imagine of claiming a religion is true?

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

Well of course. I'm arguing against a position that you hold to be correct. Defensive is natural and dare I say the correct position. Heck if you aren't willing to go on the defense and defend your position why would you hold it in the first place?

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

So what? Are you saying people shouldn't even advocate against or criticize the things they disagree with?

4. Criticism creates hard feelings in the criticized.

So what? If you want to make an omelet you have to break some eggs.

5. Criticism creates arrogance in the critic.

As opposed to the inherent arrogance of claims an absolutist religion?

[_amantha]

We are told NOT to judge.

We are not "told" anything. There is no guy in the sky telling us what we can an can't do.

Judgment is good, exercise it. Criticism is good if the intent behind it is good. Charity knows this, but she wants to defend an indefensible position, so she will forego reason for the sake of playing her "you can't prove anything" game, while no one is attempting to "prove" anything.

In a competitive world, all ideas should be challenged so that we can have better ideas and thereby, better lives. Those who believe that the best ideas have already been laid out by "god" are wrong--Charity included.

The leaders of the LDS Church are deceivers of the worst kind. They are the wolves in sheep's clothing who preach, "Beware of the wolves in sheep's clothing." What is more dangerous than that? Charity is both deceived and a deceiver in the same deception and I believe on some level she knows it. She simply enjoys her game. I'm sorry, but if there is such a thing as evil, that is it.

Charity argues from a completely unfalsifiable position which is immune to reason. So discussing anything with her will inevitably go in eternal circles.

She hypocritically demands rational evidence when her entire position is ultimately founded on that which is not amenable to rational evidence.

She and her church are in great need of critical analysis and even ridicule. Just as it excites Charity to think of all the people whom, she believes, will get their well deserved "I told you sos" on the "other side," I too wish to see some justice when it comes to the lame claims of the apologists and their insincere ilk, including Charity. There is just too much human suffering around the issue of religion and especially the LDS religion to not want to have the situation change for the better. That is why I criticize Charity and her evil organization.

[_charity]

So people suddenly and spontaneously all decide that something is wrong and go about doing something about it? There’s never any reflection, any evaluation, any exercise in which people critically assess?
Have you ever actually spent any time in the world?
By the way, if people see something should be done differently, how do they know that? They exercised critical judgment, that’s how.

We are talking about criticizing people.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Oh yes, this is great wisdom. So only perfect people have the right to criticize? Well, that makes a hell of a lot of sense. Some of the greatest social critics who have literally changed the world have been anything but perfect. Martin Luther King, for example, was a womanizing plagiarist, but this didn’t keep him from becoming a significant moral force in the world or diminish the value of his social criticisms.

If Martin Luither King, Jr. had been criticizing other men who slept around, he sure should have been perfect in that area, yes.

Yes, you’re bootstrapping the definition. Thus we have things called “constructive criticism” and “negative feedback.” I think you must be the only one on the planet who things that feedback is judgment free.

You, along with many others, do not understand what negative feedback means. Please look it up in the dicitonary. And please don't try to make your up own defintion.

I wouldn’t gossip about the Bishop either. But I would tell other people if I thought a charity wasn’t using its funds wisely. The context of OP had to do with criticizing the brethren, so it’s a legitimate question for you to answer.
So, is Oaks correct? Should we not criticize the Brethren, even if it’s true?
Would you apply this same argument across the board? Why or why not?

Elder Oakes is correct. We should not criticize the Brethren, even if it is true. For all the reasons I have stated above.

Across the board? You mean to everybody in the world? Perfection is in not criticizing anyone. That would mean everybody in the world. I am not always perfect in this area. Then I have to repent.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

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.

[/quote]

If we all can see when things need to be done differently and go about and do it, why do we need feedback? And why do we need guys like Oaks telling us what to do?

[_beastie]

Did church leaders counsel against

A - criticism in general, or

B - did they only counsel against criticism of church leaders?

It's my impression that the answer is B. Church leaders, as far as I recall, do not counsel against criticism as an act, in and of itself, which is what Charity has been arguing against. They only counsel to not criticize leaders. So, according to them, it's not the act of criticism in and of itself that is the problem, but criticism of church leaders.

Power corrupts. Power enacted without transparency and without the possibility of criticism is even more open to corruption.