What good does it do to criticize?

[_malkie]

...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?

And last I checked, Martin Luther is held up to be admirable by the LDS Church, in spite of the fact that what he did can clearly be classified as "criticism of church leaders" under Charity's definition.

Here's from an article in an official LDS magazine, the Liahona, in March 2005. I'd like to hear Charity specifically address how what Martin Luther did is acceptable in terms of criticism of church leaders, and how anything else isn't.

Martin Luther was another of these people, called reformers, who saw that some of the practices of the Christian church were incorrect. He was a religious and educated man, and he wanted to change the practices of the church that did not match the teachings of the Bible. In 1517, in an attempt to promote discussion on the practices of the church, Luther wrote a document, identified as his Ninety-five Theses, and nailed it to the door of a church in Wittenberg, Germany. This act marked the beginning of the Protestant Reformation.

Luther was excommunicated from the Catholic Church for his actions of protest, but he kept his desire to conform to the teachings of the Bible. He opened the way for other reformers through his years of work and his German translation of the Bible. Many followed Luther and others like him who fought to reform the Christian church or to establish new churches. These people were called Protestants.

LINK

But that was criticism of church (Catholic) leaders, not criticism of Church (LDS) leaders. There is a difference, at least in the minds of some.

[_Moniker]

This was my favorite comment directed at me from Charity.

Don't try and link the two again, or say that I said it. It will only make you look stupid.

I'm pretty sure I "look stupid" in a few ways on this board, yet, I wonder if that was feedback or criticism? I'm so confused, of course us dummies get confused easily!

[_the road to hana]

But that was criticism of church (Catholic) leaders, not criticism of Church (LDS) leaders. There is a difference, at least in the minds of some.

I'd love to hear Charity say that is the case, and that any New Testament reference she is citing refers only to members of the LDS Church.

[_malkie]

But that was criticism of church (Catholic) leaders, not criticism of Church (LDS) leaders. There is a difference, at least in the minds of some.

I'd love to hear Charity say that is the case, and that any New Testament reference she is citing refers only to members of the LDS Church.

Dang it Hana! Now she'll never say that! (;=>

[_LCD2YOU]

But that was criticism of church (Catholic) leaders, not criticism of Church (LDS) leaders. There is a difference, at least in the minds of some.

I'd love to hear Charity say that is the case, and that any New Testament reference she is citing refers only to members of the LDS Church.

Dang it Hana! Now she'll never say that! (;=>

It's like the itch we in the US get ever 2, 4 or 6 years to "throw the bums out" of DC.

Those people in DC are so out of touch with the rest of the citizens in the US. We need our great Senator Olden Krustie, who has been our stalwart Senator since my grandpa could vote, to keep us in the game. We send him back every 6 years. This will be the 10th term he's served!

People forget that one person's hero is another's villian. One person's stalwart senator is who another person calls one of those do nothing morons in Washington.

An ox getting gored is only an issue for too many in this country if it is their ox getting gored.

One person thinks they are only applying real world repurcussions while another recognizes undue criticism.

OBTW, the RCC is The Church to the rest of the world. I guess it is like non-LDS being called "gentiles" in Utah.

[_Trinity]

Let's talk about your presence on this board, Charity. Are you here to agree with the general sentiments expressed on this board? Or are you here to criticize and judge the sentiments expressed on this board. Because based on your behavior here, I'm going to go out on a limb and say your role here has been specifically to criticize. Let's recap:

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.

[_malkie]

Harmony, I have only known Dan a couple of years. I have been saying the same thing for over 40 years.

Sorry Charity, I just can't help myself sometimes: Do you mean that for over 40 years you have been saying that you have only known Dan a couple of years?

I'm sure that you will treat this post with the contempt that it so richly deserves, but just in case you were not going to do so, please reconsider. You should not lower yourself by replying.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Charity, I can agree that we do need to be careful when we criticize others. There is a tactful way of contructively criticizing others. However, this thread was prompted by Oaks's statement about how it is wrong to criticize leaders of the church. Somehow you are twisting this to mean we need to be carefule when we offer feedback. If Oaks had said, "It is wrong to criticize others. Instead, we should offer helpful feedback." I think more people would agree with that. But he didn't say that. He said it is wrong to criticize church leaders. I don't see how that could be twisted to a broad statement about hurtful criticism of others. If Oaks meant that we shouldn't criticize one another he wouldn't have specified church leaders, he would've said we shouldn't criticize others.

[_skippy the dead]

Charity, I can agree that we do need to be careful when we criticize others. There is a tactful way of contructively criticizing others. However, this thread was prompted by Oaks's statement about how it is wrong to criticize leaders of the church. Somehow you are twisting this to mean we need to be carefule when we offer feedback. If Oaks had said, "It is wrong to criticize others. Instead, we should offer helpful feedback." I think more people would agree with that. But he didn't say that. He said it is wrong to criticize church leaders. I don't see how that could be twisted to a broad statement about hurtful criticism of others. If Oaks meant that we shouldn't criticize one another he wouldn't have specified church leaders, he would've said we shouldn't criticize others.

And, I think, just as importantly, he said it is wrong to criticize church leaders, even when the criticism is true. That is particularly ominous. To me that's saying that they are above reproach, even when there is a reason to question their actions.

by the way - I'm disappointed that Charity has not replied to many of the substantive posts here (including mine) that point out the problem with her use of the word "criticize". But I suppose that is to be expected - she rarely acknowledges her errors.

[_charity]

Likewise, for someone who thinks that criticism is just plain wrong, she sure does engage in a lot of it. My personal favorite Charity criticism was when she told me God didn't answer my prayer about Joseph Smith being a prophet because I bugged him by asking too much, although her criticism of victims of abuse comes a close second.

Ask yourself the question--"Do I see personal attacks under every bush?"

Blixa

This thread has been mind bending in many ways, beastie. The misunderstanding of criticism as strictly "negative" or commensurate with "bashing" is one of the first things I address in every class I teach: you have to understand the category not only more broadly, but also much differently in order to be able to perform analysis, critique or pretty much any kind of conceptual and abstract thinking. If you don't get this reductive definition out of the way, well, thought itself is stymied. [/quote]

The term was well defined in the OP as the #2 dictionary definition. (2. the act of passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding) and not any of the 3-6 definitions. Part of intelligent discourse is not going down rabbit trails of irrelevant thought.

Quote:
...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?

But his 95 theses weren't personal attacks on the Pope. I assume since you speak of the 95 theses you have read them? I have. There is not one place where any of the leaders of the Church are called names, insulted, etc. He did write about certain practices being in error. He did not criticize the Pope.

But that was criticism of church (Catholic) leaders, not criticism of Church (LDS) leaders. There is a difference, at least in the minds of some.

It was criticism of church PRACTICES. So your statement is incorrect.

This was my favorite comment directed at me from Charity.

Quote:
Don't try and link the two again, or say that I said it. It will only make you look stupid.

I'm pretty sure I "look stupid" in a few ways on this board, yet, I wonder if that was feedback or criticism? I'm so confused, of course us dummies get confused easily!

I didn't say you were stupid. I said certain behaviors would make you look that way. That is obviously feedback.There is a difference. And the only one around here who has called you a dummy, is yourself.

Re: Criticism as a gift
the road to hana wrote:
malkie wrote:

But that was criticism of church (Catholic) leaders, not criticism of Church (LDS) leaders. There is a difference, at least in the minds of some.


I'd love to hear Charity say that is the case, and that any New Testament reference she is citing refers only to members of the LDS Church.

Dang it Hana! Now she'll never say that! (;=>

Please read the 95 Theses and quote back any personal attack on a Catholic Church leader.

Let's talk about your presence on this board, Charity. Are you here to agree with the general sentiments expressed on this board? Or are you here to criticize and judge the sentiments expressed on this board. Because based on your behavior here, I'm going to go out on a limb and say your role here has been specifically to criticize. Let's recap:

My presence on the board is to refute error as it applies to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its history, doctrine and leaders. People are NOT the errors they believe and distribute. I don't criticize the person at all. I try to correct the error.