What good does it do to criticize?

[_SatanWasSetUp]

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.

Ohhhhhh. I'm violating my temple covenants. Me soooooo scawed. [/sarcasm]

Rcrocket, these scare tactics work with the little old ladies and young people in the church, but they have no effect on exmormons. I've been told by a TBM that they see evil demons whispering in my ear (of course they didn't see the evil demons until AFTER I told them of my doubts). A TBM woman told my wife that our unborn child (my wife wasn't even pregnant) came to this woman in a vision and told her that her daddy is making her very sad. So you telling me that I'm going straight to hell is pretty much what I would expect from a TBM. You people need some new material.

[_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.

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-

Thanks Wade. Many things in this world would be greatly improved by some self-critical reflection. (Oops, there's that darned criticism again (;=>)

I would definitely benefit from it myself, and do not take nearly enough advantage of the opportunities afforded me to do so.

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough - I was not suggesting that you are dissuading anyone from criticizing. My point goes back to the original statement that suggests to many that they are not allowed to criticize, even if the criticism is valid.

[_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-

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.

I am not sure that for Church leaders it is so much a matter of being loathe to being criticized as it is they think it best that members and former members focus their criticism inward, where they each are in a more informed position to do so, and where they are also in a position of authority to affect positive change.

Unfortunately, too often, we are loathe to do that, and choose instead to focus our criticism externally. A quick glance at the many threads and posts here will confirm this. (How many posts and threads are devoted to how we, personally, can improve and make life better for ourselves and others, as compared with what we think may be wrong with each other, the Church, or the MA&D board and its participants?)

I am not suggesting that external criticism isn't advised. In truth, I believe there are times and ways that are quite appropriate to do so--particularly when we have been earnest in putting our own house in order. It is just that, while perhaps well intentioned, much that is meant to be constructive criticism here and elsewhere, actually ends up being counterproductive grips, self-serving judgementalism, denegrating gossip, harsh and hurtful slurs, character assassinations, etc. Such things dis-benefit all parties involved or concerned.

And, iropnically, were we less loathe to conducting open and honest introspections, perhaps a good portion of the destructive criticism would cease. At least that is what I have experienced for myself.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Who Knows]

Sorry, late in the game here, and haven't read the whole thread.

But let me ask charity a question - Is it wrong to criticize anti-mormons?

[_charity]

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.

was to discuss the idea expressed by Elder Oakes, that we should not criticize Church leaders, even if they were wrong. The meaning of the word IN CONTEXT is the way that Elder Oakes used it. To change the definition away from that renders a discussion of what he said pointless. If you want to start a new thread about a different defintion of the word, go ahead. But if we are going to stay with the OP, we stay with the context.

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.

People have the right to do a lot of things they shouldn't do. Drink themselves into black outs. Practice unsafe sex with multiple partners. Live in unhygenic conditions with rats and roaches. Complain and whine about way they think somebody should have done something better.

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.

Interesting idea. I am quite confident that the Prophet, the Apostles, and other General Authorities are well informed on every aspect of the Church, doctrine, operations, etc. So they don't need any member from Podunk Ward organizing a boycott, writing letters to the editor of the Salt Lake Tribune, etc.

However, to grant you that perhaps some idea would not have occurred to the Prophet to ask the Lord about, this is my opinion about that.

Even if there would occasionally be something brought up in a "critical" way does this mean that Church leaders should be criticized? I don't think so. For this reason. Take the example of drinking red wine. It appears that there is a small medical benefit to drinking red wine. However, there are many harmful effects of drinking wine. The Yale Medical Newsletter talks about different medical conditions which will be worsened by drinking wine. Only a small amount is recommended for the medical benefit, but a significant number of people will exceed that amount and cause medical problems and some even end up in alcoholism. As a capper, there are other non-alcholic version which give the same benefit, without the possibility of the bad results.

So, from a really prudent standpoint, the wisest course is NOT to drink red wine. Even though there is a small benefit. The same way with criticism. Even if I were to concede (which I don't) that once in a while a criticism may spark some good results, over all criticism has so many bad results, we should never do it.

[_rcrocket]

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.

Ohhhhhh. I'm violating my temple covenants. Me soooooo scawed. [/sarcasm]

Rcrocket, these scare tactics work with the little old ladies and young people in the church, but they have no effect on exmormons. I've been told by a TBM that they see evil demons whispering in my ear (of course they didn't see the evil demons until AFTER I told them of my doubts). A TBM woman told my wife that our unborn child (my wife wasn't even pregnant) came to this woman in a vision and told her that her daddy is making her very sad. So you telling me that I'm going straight to hell is pretty much what I would expect from a TBM. You people need some new material.

Oops. I guess your anecdotes simply Trump my point. Bravo.

[_skippy the dead]

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.

was to discuss the idea expressed by Elder Oakes, that we should not criticize Church leaders, even if they were wrong. The meaning of the word IN CONTEXT is the way that Elder Oakes used it. To change the definition away from that renders a discussion of what he said pointless. If you want to start a new thread about a different defintion of the word, go ahead. But if we are going to stay with the OP, we stay with the context.

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.

People have the right to do a lot of things they shouldn't do. Drink themselves into black outs. Practice unsafe sex with multiple partners. Live in unhygenic conditions with rats and roaches. Complain and whine about way they think somebody should have done something better.

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.

Interesting idea. I am quite confident that the Prophet, the Apostles, and other General Authorities are well informed on every aspect of the Church, doctrine, operations, etc. So they don't need any member from Podunk Ward organizing a boycott, writing letters to the editor of the Salt Lake Tribune, etc.

However, to grant you that perhaps some idea would not have occurred to the Prophet to ask the Lord about, this is my opinion about that.

Even if there would occasionally be something brought up in a "critical" way does this mean that Church leaders should be criticized? I don't think so. For this reason. Take the example of drinking red wine. It appears that there is a small medical benefit to drinking red wine. However, there are many harmful effects of drinking wine. The Yale Medical Newsletter talks about different medical conditions which will be worsened by drinking wine. Only a small amount is recommended for the medical benefit, but a significant number of people will exceed that amount and cause medical problems and some even end up in alcoholism. As a capper, there are other non-alcholic version which give the same benefit, without the possibility of the bad results.

So, from a really prudent standpoint, the wisest course is NOT to drink red wine. Even though there is a small benefit. The same way with criticism. Even if I were to concede (which I don't) that once in a while a criticism may spark some good results, over all criticism has so many bad results, we should never do it.

OK - I think I'm beginning to at least sort of start to understand your position. I don't agree that criticism of leaders is on par with living with rats and roaches, but I think I can see where you are going. Obviously we disagree, but at least I believe I understand what you mean.

Take another look at the red wine studies, by the way - it's not just the anti-oxidants that provide benefit, but also the alcohol itself provides cardiovascular benefits. I would be interested to see the Yale Medical Newsletter you mention, though, since I do partake in a glass of red wine almost daily. My quick googling of "Yale Medical Newsletter" and "red wine" indicated that up to 2 to 3 glasses of red wine is good for the heart; I haven't come across anything that tracks with what you mention.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

People have the right to do a lot of things they shouldn't do. Drink themselves into black outs. Practice unsafe sex with multiple partners. Live in unhygenic conditions with rats and roaches. Complain and whine about way they think somebody should have done something better.

Ahh, so criticizing church leaders is in the same category as binge drinking until you blackout, and having group sex without a condom. Oh how I wish that Oaks had added that to his remarks. It would've made my sig so much more entertaining.

[_charity]

OK - I think I'm beginning to at least sort of start to understand your position. I don't agree that criticism of leaders is on par with living with rats and roaches, but I think I can see where you are going. Obviously we disagree, but at least I believe I understand what you mean.

Take another look at the red wine studies, by the way - it's not just the anti-oxidants that provide benefit, but also the alcohol itself provides cardiovascular benefits. I would be interested to see the Yale Medical Newsletter you mention, though, since I do partake in a glass of red wine almost daily. My quick googling of "Yale Medical Newsletter" and "red wine" indicated that up to 2 to 3 glasses of red wine is good for the heart; I haven't come across anything that tracks with what you mention.

I misquoted. It was from Yale-New Haven Hospital. Here is the link:http://www.ynhh.org/online/nutrition/advisor/red_wine.html

[_charity]

People have the right to do a lot of things they shouldn't do. Drink themselves into black outs. Practice unsafe sex with multiple partners. Live in unhygenic conditions with rats and roaches. Complain and whine about way they think somebody should have done something better.

Ahh, so criticizing church leaders is in the same category as binge drinking until you blackout, and having group sex without a condom. Oh how I wish that Oaks had added that to his remarks. It would've made my sig so much more entertaining.

Probably from an eternal standpoint, being a whiner and complainer is worse for a person than being an alcoholic, being promiscuous, or dying from AIDS. But that isn't my call.