What good does it do to criticize?

[_Blixa]

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.

These different definitions are not entirely separate and discrete; they overlap all the time, especially in conventional conversation. Which is why I try in the classes I teach to intervene in the uncritical conflation of the individual and personal with the operation of "abstract" critical judgement. Also, I'm not that sure that the entire thread has been devoted to some "dictionary definition #2" from the OP on at all, and even if it started there why could it not grow and deepen with reference to broader and more complex concepts? Especially if they are connected, as I assert: the consequences of a prohibition against criticism (as an ultimately futile act of self-aggrandizement) do not just play out on the level of social faux pas at ward dinners, but, as many junctures in this thread testify, they connect with how one views the necessity, priority and value of human rationality and the relation of the individual to structures of power and authority.

[_rcrocket]

Whether one criticizes or not is a difficult subject.

The Church teaches that (and I am using my own terms) horizontal -- public or private -- criticism of Church leaders is contrary to its requirements and particularly contrary to covenants made in the temple. There are many particular references to this "grumbling" criticism and the consequences of it in the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon. It doesn't matter that the criticism may be true; some of the criticism of Moses was true but the the children of Israel suffered for their grumbling.

The Church does not bar vertical "critiquing", that is, taking your objections and concerns to those who preside over or under your in a church calling. Although criticizing the apostles to your bishop is likely going to be interpreted as not sustaining them, at the least you are doing the right thing by taking your concerns to somebody who might be doing something about it.

Anonymous criticism is cowardly and there is little doubt, in my opinion, that those who engage it it are directly violating temple covenants in a most serious way.

Criticism posted here by temple recommend holders is kind of like loading up on napalm as you plan your vacation to hell.

A rather simple thesis.

[_skippy the dead]

Whether one criticizes or not is a difficult subject.

The Church teaches that (and I am using my own terms) horizontal -- public or private -- criticism of Church leaders is contrary to its requirements and particularly contrary to covenants made in the temple. There are many particular references to this "grumbling" criticism and the consequences of it in the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon. It doesn't matter that the criticism may be true; some of the criticism of Moses was true but the the children of Israel suffered for their grumbling.

The Church does not bar vertical "critiquing", that is, taking your objections and concerns to those who preside over or under your in a church calling. Although criticizing the apostles to your bishop is likely going to be interpreted as not sustaining them, at the least you are doing the right thing by taking your concerns to somebody who might be doing something about it.

Anonymous criticism is cowardly and there is little doubt, in my opinion, that those who engage it it are directly violating temple covenants in a most serious way.

Criticism posted here by temple recommend holders is kind of like loading up on napalm as you plan your vacation to hell.

A rather simple thesis.

blah blah blah anonymous blah blah blah coward blah blah blah going to hell blah blah blah

[_Moniker]

blah blah blah anonymous blah blah blah coward blah blah blah going to hell blah blah blah

*snort*

[_wenglund]

I think we would all agree that there are effective and ineffective ways of criticizing, and effective and ineffective places to criticize.

A good measurement for each is whether or not the criticism takes hold and engenders positive change.

How do you suppose the criticism on this board, from both sides, measures up?

I ask because at times venting, judgementalism, whining, complaining, gossip, etc. may be mistaken for constructive criticism.

Granted, there are also those who are inclined to criticize, but are lothe to being criticized.

Does that describe you? I know it describes me to some extent (though I am striving to improve).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_malkie]

I think we would all agree that there are effective and ineffective ways of criticizing, and effective and ineffective places to criticize.

A good measurement for each is whether or not the criticism takes hold and engenders positive change.

How do you suppose the criticism on this board, from both sides, measures up?

I ask because at times venting, judgementalism, whining, complaining, gossip, etc. may be mistaken for constructive criticism.

Granted, there are also those who are inclined to criticize, but are lothe to being criticized.

Does that describe you? I know it describes me to some extent (though I am striving to improve).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

But if you are dissuaded from criticizing, you never get to know if the criticism would take hold and engender positive change.

I believe that this is the concept that bothers many who would like to see positive change.

[_malkie]

I think we would all agree that there are effective and ineffective ways of criticizing, and effective and ineffective places to criticize.

A good measurement for each is whether or not the criticism takes hold and engenders positive change.

How do you suppose the criticism on this board, from both sides, measures up?

I ask because at times venting, judgementalism, whining, complaining, gossip, etc. may be mistaken for constructive criticism.

Granted, there are also those who are inclined to criticize, but are lothe to being criticized.

Does that describe you? I know it describes me to some extent (though I am striving to improve).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The original statement by Elder Oaks suggests that he, and others in the highest levels of the church hierarchy, fall into the category of "loathe to being criticized".

I think that we all suffer from that failing, to some extent, but most of us do not have the pulpit to authoritatively disseminate the idea (that we should not be criticized) amongst the members of the Church, and many would be mortally embarrassed to suggest such in public in any case.

Of course, if I were a GA (perish the thought!) or other church leader, I might feel the same way - I am not to be criticized by the masses.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

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.

Wow, what an amazing coincidence;)

[_Church Mouse]

Criticism posted here by temple recommend holders is kind of like loading up on napalm as you plan your vacation to hell.

Hand me the gasoline and the green Jello, we're going in style, baby!

Look, trying to frighten people with your imaginary Hell doesn't work really well. I don't have a valid recommend anymore -- forthright discussion of my open agnostic atheism and belief that Christianity is a bad joke tends to make bishops reluctant to sign one on my behalf -- but even if I did, "evil-speaking of the Lord's anointed" is a totally different type of practice from criticizing ignorance or attempting to root out bureaucratic evils in an organization.

I carefully tiptoe around the Temple covenants because I know LDS folks are sensitive to that. But if there's a social ill directly attributable to a practice of the LDS church, you can bet your ass it's not only not "evil-speaking" but the OBLIGATION of temple-recommend-holders to speak out and root out the corrupt practice from their midst. The Parable of the Talents shows that inaction is tantamount to wasting one's inheritance. If you try and fail, you have gained strength to try again. If you never try... you may as well lay down and die.

[_wenglund]

I think we would all agree that there are effective and ineffective ways of criticizing, and effective and ineffective places to criticize.

A good measurement for each is whether or not the criticism takes hold and engenders positive change.

How do you suppose the criticism on this board, from both sides, measures up?

I ask because at times venting, judgementalism, whining, complaining, gossip, etc. may be mistaken for constructive criticism.

Granted, there are also those who are inclined to criticize, but are lothe to being criticized.

Does that describe you? I know it describes me to some extent (though I am striving to improve).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

But if you are dissuaded from criticizing, you never get to know if the criticism would take hold and engender positive change.

I believe that this is the concept that bothers many who would like to see positive change.

But, I am not dissuading anyone from criticizing. I simply suggesting that there are functional and dysfunctional ways of going about doing it, and functional and dysfunctional places to do so.

I am also suggesting it is reasonable to conclude that one should be as open to criticism as they are open to cricizing.

In short, I think it behoves all of us to self-assess how we measure up in this regard. I think if we do so honestly and open-mindedly, the discourse here would become radically improved, and if not somewhat non-existent (for want of our being in a position to affect certain changes in the Church), would be more focused on self-criticism and how we can improve ourselves.

But, I suppose that mild "criticsm" may prove ineffectual, and perhaps may be best left unsaid. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-