What good does it do to criticize?

[_JAK]

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.

Charity,

Let’s address your original post here.

Criticism is critical to progress. That’s a principle. We cannot have progress and new ideas if we eliminate or attempt to eliminate criticism.

It is critical analysis which produced the very computer on which you type your posts. Someone, many persons thought. The reasoned beyond the previous horizon of information and knowledge.

You are entirely incorrect to consider that criticism lacks benefit.

You state:
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."

It’s a false statement. The critic thinks and expresses his criticism as a result of looking beyond the previous notions to which he offers criticism. It is not a matter of feeling superior or “better” as you say. It is a matter of I have an idea. It is a matter of I see something which has not been given consideration..

You’re wrong on #1.

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

That applies to those defending the status quo. It is the old school which becomes defensive a its ideas are questioned and challenged by criticism.. It’s also irrelevant.

The relevant question is: Does the criticism have merit? Is the criticism warrented?.

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

Incorrect again. Change is always a result of criticism of the past. We advance as a result of criticism in any area of human endeavor. So “criticism” in fact does result in change. While it advances thinking, innovation, and intellectual exploration, it is continuously on the move. Yesterday’s critics are today’s innovators. And today’s critics will be tomorrow’s innovators.

You state:
4. Criticism creates hard feelings in the criticized.

Not necessarily. While it might, “hard feelings” are irrelevant to meaningful change which is produced by criticism.. Is the invention of the computer superior to the “feelings” of those who continue to favor the mechanical typewriter? Of course not.
The “hard feelings” of those whose ideas are replaced by superior ideas pass with the deaths of those who may have harbored “hard feelings.”

Change is inevitable. We cannot escape change in ideas, culture, perceptions, and certainly in knowledge.

You state:
5. Criticism creates arrogance in the critic.

It’s not valid criticism. “Arrogance” is a non issue here. The Wright brothers may or may not have been arrogant as they experimented with their “flying machines.” The point of importance is that the Wright brother were correct. They experimented, they studied, they discovered. Some said: If God meant for man to flyl God would have given man wings..

Well, man invented wings. Today, we take tens of thousands of air flights a day for granted. The world is made smaller as a result of air travel. The new ideas prevailed.

Now all of this can be applied to antiquated religious mentality as well.

You state:
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.

Of course the criticism can change it. The next talent show may be a success, the food may be tasty, it may be well attended. It’s irrelevant that someone is made unhappy as a result of a poor program or food. Can the talent show be improved?

If it can, only criticism will make that happen. Someone, must be the critic..

Your position here is absurd.

You state:
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.

The criticism has the potential to improve the entire situation. Absent criticism of the past, the future is as bleak as the past. Change is made certain by criticism.

If we followed your line of argument (and it’s not reason), there would never be any change. You are writing on a very complex example of change. Any religious notions are irrelevant to the technological level achieved by the innovation of the Internet and our capacity to access information and to communicate with one another.

Charity, you are so incorrect in your analysis here that communication with you is most difficult. You’re using the most modern of communication devices. Yet you are attempting to perpetuate the most backward and dull of perspectives.

JAK

[_JAK]

As Moniker asked above, do you give all your students A's and do they always score 100% on their tests with you? If not, then you have criticized them, haven't you?

I have not criticized the student. Tests are merely consequences. If I say, "You have bad study habits, you aren't smart enough for this level class, you are too immature for college," that is criticism.

All it says is "Look what you've done. What you stated here is something else entirely.

Not true. It is one thing to say to someone, "This is the result of what you did." (As in the example with the bishop, if you go to him and say "My friend felt he wasn't supported. He really has been trying to get himself together. Since I know him so well. . . ." ) and quite another to say, "You really botched this up."

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

Depends on how you tell them. Depends on what advice (or not) you give them afterwards. That is generally true, but I live by the addage:

"The Truth shall set you free, even if it gets you mad first!"

I agree that how you say anything makes a difference. It is in the judging or not judging. Saying to the bishop, "This is what my friend felt after you spoke to him. " does not imply a judgement. You are not telling the bishop he was wrong. You are merely relaying information. As soon as you start to criticize, you have stopped relaying information. This is what happens with criticism. Feedback is generally great. Criticism is generally counter productive.

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

Poor criticism, just saying "You're wrong you moron" will not. Constructive comments, generally will. Though I know a few people who need the 2x4 method of delivering "constructive comments".

So you would go to the activities committee chairman and say, "Next time you plan a ward activity, you really ought to plan a better menu. And when you have a talent show, you really should have auditions first so we aren't stuck having to listen to Sister Blank sing and Brother Cypher tell that boring long story." ???

4. Criticism creates hard feelings in the criticized.

In most cases, I don't care. If I criticize my daughters for poor grades and offer them a solution and they get over the "hard feelings" and do better in school, the "hard feelings" they had because I grounded them from going out with their friends that night, well, I'll get past that really easily.

You really aren't getting the point here about criticism. When my kids got a bad grade, they were limited in their activities until they pulled the grade up. That is NOT criticism. That is behavioral consequences. Criticism is not saying, "You will be given a chance to concentrate more on your math, because you will not be allowed to talk to your friends on the phone after school until your homework is done." Criticism is saying, "You are so flighty! All you do is talk to your friends on the phone instead of doing your homework."

And you should be very concerned about hard feelings in your children. All that does is make the child rebellious. It also tears down the child's self esteem.

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.

Especailly if you were asked to help and you didn't bother lifting a finger. Though there are times, like say the heirarchy has planned an event every night at the ward (woe to those who don't go). Now here's a time where criticism of planning ward activities that interfere with family life is totally justified. The person who plans all of these events has no regard for others and should be brought back to reality.

How do you mean "woe to those who don't go?" The best feedback is simply not to attend. And your "every night" scenario doesn't wash in the Church. Lots of talks lately about limiting activities and meetings which take people away from family time.

But criticism, where it is deserved, is as "Some Schmo" pointed out, "a way to help people grow"

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

Charity,

You said:
I have not criticized the student. Tests are merely consequences. If I say, "You have bad study habits, you aren't smart enough for this level class, you are too immature for college," that is criticism.

This is double talk. Of course you have criticized the student if you tell that student “You have bad study habits…”

That is criticsm!

Sorry, but you are greatly out of touch with the meaning of words in the English vocabulary.

JAK

[_JAK]

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.

What you’re looking for here is the famous quotation:

“Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

JAK

[Guest]

I know I'm not unique in this view, but I haven't seen it expressed this way in this thread yet. Criticism can be a gift to the criticized. It means that someone has given sufficient thought to a person or thing to think about and recommend adjustments. Well-thought-out, constructive criticism is precious. Poorly-thought-out criticism is like a beautifully-wrapped package of dog poop.

I think that it's important when I hear criticism that I evaluate:
* Whether I'm being criticized, or something or someone with whom I affiliate. The two are very different animals, despite how much I root for my favorite sports teams.
* Whether the specific criticism has merit.
* If it has merit, how I can improve on the thing being criticized.

There are some criticisms that deserve consideration... and there are others that don't. I struggle to differentiate sometimes, but I'm improving.

What you’re looking for here is the famous quotation:

“Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Any form of government which relies on public balloting of its members is a system inherently prone to corruption. We see this in the House of Representatives, the Senate, and LDS congregations. Only a secret ballot allows individuals to vote their conscience rather than out of fear of reprisal.

Unfortunately, in our Republic, we need accountability and transparency, and those needs have to be weighed against our representatives being able to vote their conscience. When a voter is responsible only to represent him or herself, however, there is rarely an excuse for public balloting.

[_JAK]

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.

The apostle Paul also told women to shut up in church.

The LDS church has it's share of divisions and splits. The RLDS, the FLDS, the many polygamist sects in Utah are all splits from the LDS church. How is that not healthy?

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.

The doctrinal shifts throughout Christianity are in the thousands. You have just mentioned some doctrinal shifts in Mormons.

Each and all of the doctrinal shifts through the history of the Christian religion demonstrate that none is reliable as each new shift tends to perceive itself as the true doctrine of Christianity.

JAK

[_rcrocket]

I know I'm not unique in this view, but I haven't seen it expressed this way in this thread yet. Criticism can be a gift to the criticized. It means that someone has given sufficient thought to a person or thing to think about and recommend adjustments. Well-thought-out, constructive criticism is precious. Poorly-thought-out criticism is like a beautifully-wrapped package of dog poop.

I think that it's important when I hear criticism that I evaluate:
* Whether I'm being criticized, or something or someone with whom I affiliate. The two are very different animals, despite how much I root for my favorite sports teams.
* Whether the specific criticism has merit.
* If it has merit, how I can improve on the thing being criticized.

There are some criticisms that deserve consideration... and there are others that don't. I struggle to differentiate sometimes, but I'm improving.

Do you think it honorable to criticize somebody behind their back rather than to their face, to somebody with no power to effect a change in the person being criticized?

Do you think it honorable to use an anonymous name to post public criticism on a telephone pole of a living person with a family and a repuation in that person's neighborhood?

If you work and have a job, do you think it honorable to put anonymous criticisms of your boss up on the restroom wall, rather than confronting your boss?

Criticism has its place in the church -- you can take matters up directly with the person with whom you have a problem, or his surrogate. Talking about it anonymously makes you a coward.

[_skippy the dead]

I know I'm not unique in this view, but I haven't seen it expressed this way in this thread yet. Criticism can be a gift to the criticized. It means that someone has given sufficient thought to a person or thing to think about and recommend adjustments. Well-thought-out, constructive criticism is precious. Poorly-thought-out criticism is like a beautifully-wrapped package of dog poop.

I think that it's important when I hear criticism that I evaluate:
* Whether I'm being criticized, or something or someone with whom I affiliate. The two are very different animals, despite how much I root for my favorite sports teams.
* Whether the specific criticism has merit.
* If it has merit, how I can improve on the thing being criticized.

There are some criticisms that deserve consideration... and there are others that don't. I struggle to differentiate sometimes, but I'm improving.

Do you think it honorable to criticize somebody behind their back rather than to their face, to somebody with no power to effect a change in the person being criticized?

Do you think it honorable to use an anonymous name to post public criticism on a telephone pole of a living person with a family and a repuation in that person's neighborhood?

If you work and have a job, do you think it honorable to put anonymous criticisms of your boss up on the restroom wall, rather than confronting your boss?

Criticism has its place in the church -- you can take matters up directly with the person with whom you have a problem, or his surrogate. Talking about it anonymously makes you a coward.

Dude - now you're just reaching to make your stupid anonymity arguments. I haven't seen where, on this thread, anyone is advocating to make criticisms anonymously. Give it a rest.

[_JAK]

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.

Charity said:
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.

Amantha is exactly correct in analysis of Charity’s pontificating. Charity, you make judgment in virtually all your posts. Then you claim here: “We are told NOT to judge.” That is religious dogma. It’s also irrelevant to the benefits of intellectually honest criticism.

Absent criticism, no progress on any front would take place. The evolution of religious doctrine and dogma is a continuing process since the first superstitions which emerged as religious postures.

You don’t like that historical perspective. It’s a reality check for you. You prefer religious myth. At the same time you fail to recognize that religious myths disagree with one another. Each claims to have the truth while denigrating the claims of other religious groups which ALSO claim to have truth.

JAK

[_charity]

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.

I just went to General Conference talks at LDS.org. Went to the search box and entered " criticism." There are many cautions against criticism. Two out of the first 14 were about criticism of Church leaders and doctrine. The others were about treating each other better in family relationships.

So it is about criticism in general.

[_beastie]

Funny, I did the same thing, and it looks like the criticism of, ahem, criticism is more carefully defined than you are letting on. The first one refers to "harsh" criticism, the second to "restrained" criticism. And one even refers to DESERVED criticism.

This was a search in all church content.

Here are the examples:

1. Forgiveness Will Change Bitterness to Love

David E. Sorensen

In much of today’s popular culture, the virtues of forgiveness and kindness are belittled, while ridicule, anger, and harsh criticism are encouraged. Let us not hurt the ones we love the most by selfish criticism!

Gospel Library > Magazines > Liahona > May 2003

2. A Time of New Beginnings

Gordon B. Hinckley

I hope that each one of us will be a better husband or wife, kinder to one another, more thoughtful, more restrained in criticism, and more generous with compliments.

Gospel Library > Magazines > Ensign > May 2000

6. Follow the Prophet

Glenn L. Pace

Responsible nonmember teasing and criticism is harmless. Criticism always hurts most when we deserve it.

So it's not criticism in general that is the problem. It is harsh criticism, it is unrestrained criticism, and sometimes criticism is deserved.

But not, of course, when it comes to your leaders.