rcrocket wrote: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?
Are you speaking of a private citizen, an institution, or a public figure? These would have case-by-case answers, no?
* Private citizen: Absolutely, if I have a problem with Bob, I should discuss it with Bob.
* Institution: It cuts itself off from criticism in most cases; the only way to effectively criticize is publicly or with publicity.
* Public Figure: In most cases, an official has invited criticism through his or her position and supporters. In that situation, it may be appropriate to treat the public official as an institution if they cannot be dealt with on a person-to-person basis.
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?
I've struggled with that very issue. My next-door-neighbor in my previous home was a convicted child molester, and during his time in our neighborhood he repeated the offense and was sent to jail. Was it my duty to warn my fellow parents in the neighborhood who's children may have been at risk? At least in this case, Utah law is clear: you may not publicize the results of the Utah Sex Offender Registry in any way, including verbally. Although I complied with the law, the subsequent recidivism of the molester troubled me. In this, as in many other things, I do not think there is a clear-cut answer, and it too should be treated on a case-by-case basis.
...do you think it honorable to put anonymous criticisms of your boss up on the restroom wall, rather than confronting your boss?
Isn't that exactly what Martin Luther did in the sixteenth century? If a public notice was the only effective recourse to redress grievances, I think it would be an appropriate course of action to post such notice. Luther was unable to elicit an acceptable response from the Catholic Church for his grievances. He posted his
95 Theses to the Wittenburg church door, and the rest is history. Could it not be said that in the Internet age, discussion forums such as these are the church doors of the twenty-first century?
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.
I assume you're not speaking to me when using the term "coward", but using a conversational "you" here? I sign my posts with my real name, and I'm very easy to look up on the Internet. As mentioned at the top of this post, when dealing with an institutional problem, it is often ineffective to attempt to appeal directly to the infringing institution.
What option would you choose to eliminate a social ill that affected you directly, if appeals to the institution which was the source of the problem were ineffective?
I see a tangible social ill in that paying tithes (as a measure of one's obedience) is a prerequisite to receiving salvific ordinances in the temple. One is contingent upon the other, much like the sale of indulgences which so incited Luther.
The result of Luther's effort was the Protestant Reformation, which caused a dramatic and positive improvement in the corruption of the Catholic Church and those schisms which were created in its wake. It is my fond hope that gifts of criticism of corrupt LDS policies might cause similar positive improvement to tangible social ills.