What good does it do to criticize?

[_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!

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.

Right, is that the same feedback you give when you say certain behavior (an abused woman that stays with her abusive husband) makes someone "dumb" and "weak"? I'm pretty sure that is feedback, too?

Earlier you wrote this:

1. Criticism and feedback are not the same thing. Criticism says "you are wrong, stupid, etc. . . " Feedback provides information to the person. Earlier in the thread I addressed this in regards to giving students grades. A grade is feeback on how much they know or don't know about the subject. It does not criticize. So, if a person points out to you that something you are doing has an effect that you did not intend or don't like, you can change it without having the sting of a denounciation.

Explain how you are consistent, please?

[_charity]

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.

Now, skippy, that was a criticism of me. "she rarely. . . " Please note, I set out the definiton, and the limitation of the topic in the OP. We were talking about a particular statement, and the use of the word "criticize" was clealry set out. To try to change the definition in the middle of the argument gets way off topic. Or to try to have a discussion about the meaning of the word is a rabbit trail.

Elder Oakes did not say the Church leaders were above reproach or that they never did anything which could be criticized. He said it was wrong to actually criticize them. You, and others, should realize that the Church is not a democracy. We don't elect leaders. We don't critique their performance. Ours is a top down organization. Jesus is at the top. The propeht next, the quorum of the twelve, the seventy, the area authorities, the regional representatives, stake presidents, bishops, presidents of quorums and auxilliaries.

Directions for change come from the top. That is because of the concept of stewardship. The Lord has the stewardship of all the earth. God gave it to him. He has delegated some of that authority to the prophet. If the Lord thinks the propeht needs to make changes, the Lord instructs. The idea that the prophet needs to make a change doesn't come from the membership.

[_Moniker]

Directions for change come from the top. That is because of the concept of stewardship. The Lord has the stewardship of all the earth. God gave it to him. He has delegated some of that authority to the prophet. If the Lord thinks the propeht needs to make changes, the Lord instructs. The idea that the prophet needs to make a change doesn't come from the membership.

Right, until the Federal government tells them to change their stance?

[_The Nehor]

Directions for change come from the top. That is because of the concept of stewardship. The Lord has the stewardship of all the earth. God gave it to him. He has delegated some of that authority to the prophet. If the Lord thinks the propeht needs to make changes, the Lord instructs. The idea that the prophet needs to make a change doesn't come from the membership.

Right, until the Federal government tells them to change their stance?

I think God said we had to change it.

[_Moniker]

Directions for change come from the top. That is because of the concept of stewardship. The Lord has the stewardship of all the earth. God gave it to him. He has delegated some of that authority to the prophet. If the Lord thinks the propeht needs to make changes, the Lord instructs. The idea that the prophet needs to make a change doesn't come from the membership.

Right, until the Federal government tells them to change their stance?

I think God said we had to change it.

God takes directions from the Federal Government? :O

[_why me]

...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.

Martin Luther is not looked upon favorably by the catholic church. Just the opposite. And when a person now looks at the luthern church, a person can see quite a liberal theology. The luthern church doesn't give a hoot about the moral life of its members and is currently losing thousands of members every year because of its flipflops, especially in Scandinavia. Thus, Martin Luther failed in his mission. Hence, he should have stayed catholic. His criticism has continued to harm future generations.

[_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.

Now, skippy, that was a criticism of me. "she rarely. . . " Please note, I set out the definiton, and the limitation of the topic in the OP. We were talking about a particular statement, and the use of the word "criticize" was clealry set out. To try to change the definition in the middle of the argument gets way off topic. Or to try to have a discussion about the meaning of the word is a rabbit trail.

Elder Oakes did not say the Church leaders were above reproach or that they never did anything which could be criticized. He said it was wrong to actually criticize them. You, and others, should realize that the Church is not a democracy. We don't elect leaders. We don't critique their performance. Ours is a top down organization. Jesus is at the top. The propeht next, the quorum of the twelve, the seventy, the area authorities, the regional representatives, stake presidents, bishops, presidents of quorums and auxilliaries.

Directions for change come from the top. That is because of the concept of stewardship. The Lord has the stewardship of all the earth. God gave it to him. He has delegated some of that authority to the prophet. If the Lord thinks the propeht needs to make changes, the Lord instructs. The idea that the prophet needs to make a change doesn't come from the membership.

Yes, that was a criticism. But see, I have no issue with giving or receiving criticism. So that's a non-starter for me.

Here's the problem: you can't just set out some definition in this case. You started with a particular quote. You can't then constrain the definition of the key word in the quote to suit your needs. You misinterpreted the word. All discussion of the word "criticize" in your original post did not actually fit the definition of the word. We cannot impute your new definition to Oaks' quote. So we're not trying to change the definition in the middle of the argument, nor are we heading down a rabbit hole - the meaning of the word (in particular, the actual meaning of the word) is integral to the discussion. You posited that "criticism" was an inherently negative, destructive act, and based your argument on that. But "criticism" is not inherently negative or destructive. And that undermines your argument, which we are entitled to point out.

I fully accept that the church is run top-down - it is the church's right to establish order how it wishes. However, in the church, as in any organization, people should still have the ability to voice their opinions, concerns, and - yes - criticisms. Whether they can "vote" on anything doesn't matter. It's within human nature to at least express themselves. And it should not be "wrong" to do so.

If the Lord thinks the propeht needs to make changes, the Lord instructs.

I do want to address this separately. This is an inconsistency in your usual position (prophets ask, God answers). If God does, indeed, instruct a prophet based on what a prophet inquires about, do you not think it's possible that a "criticism" could lead to the prophet considering something to inquire of God, that he may not have otherwise considered? Just food for thought.

[_Trinity]

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.

And this comment perfectly fits into #1 of your criticism theory:

Code: Select all

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." 

Go take a look in the mirror, Charity. If you are as honest and intelligent as you claim to be, you will realize you are engaging in the very same "error" you are attempting to correct in us.

[_The Nehor]

Directions for change come from the top. That is because of the concept of stewardship. The Lord has the stewardship of all the earth. God gave it to him. He has delegated some of that authority to the prophet. If the Lord thinks the propeht needs to make changes, the Lord instructs. The idea that the prophet needs to make a change doesn't come from the membership.

Right, until the Federal government tells them to change their stance?

I think God said we had to change it.

God takes directions from the Federal Government? :O

It just so happened that God and the Federal Government agreed this once. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. That and God gave us our chance to build Zion at the starting line. We blew it so we're wandering in the wilderness for a bit so God let us adapt some.

[_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.

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

I bow to your superior knowledge.

I hope that the Pope and other RC church leaders accepted that criticism of church practices for which they were responsible, and which happened under their authority, was not to be construed as criticism of them.
...

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.

As before, your knowledge of Luther puts mine to shame.

So, is it true then that it is OK to criticize (or give feedback on) (LDS) Church PRACTICES, without anyone, including the leaders responsible for the practices, being justified in thinking of it as criticism of them? In particular, not thinking of it as being criticism of their judgment? (Or do you think that criticism of someone's judgment is separable from criticism of the person?)

I know that you do not claim to be a mind reader, but do you believe that this is what Elder Oaks had in mind - we should feel free to criticize practices, just not the people responsible for them?