Criticism

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
wenglund
God
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:25 pm

Post by wenglund »

Fortigurn wrote:
wenglund wrote:Now, again, if you would like to vet the difference between constructive and destructive criticism, that would be appreciated.


Why? What's the point? What is the argument you are trying to make? What are you trying to achieve?


I am attempting to demonstrate that you and others may be relatively clueless as to what constitues "contructive criticism" and how to convey constructive criticism in a valued and effectual way.

You can attempt to demonstrate otherwise by vetting the difference between constructive and destructive criticism as requested twice above (assuming that is possible). ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

User avatar
beastie
God
Posts: 14216
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:26 pm

Post by beastie »

While an interesting hypothesis, it is beside the point of the thread. This is not intended to be a discussion of why LDS apologist and members may take criticism personally, but rather what types of criticism are effectual and workable in genera (based upon what you may value in the way of criticism of you personally)l, as contrasted with those that aren't. If you have some thought on topic, they would be appreciated.


I addressed this point. The only criticism that will feel "constructive" to the believer is the criticism that can be addressed in a way that makes believers feel as if continued belief is justified. Since many of the legitimate criticisms of the LDS church include criticisms that often make that continued belief seem questionable, believers will view even legitimate criticisms as "destructive", since they lead away from what they have already determined to be the truth.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com

Fortigurn
Holy Ghost
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:32 am

Post by Fortigurn »

wenglund wrote:I am attempting to demonstrate that you and others may be relatively clueless as to what constitues "contructive criticism" and how to convey constructive criticism in a valued and effectual way.


Great, when are you going to start?

You can attempt to demonstrate otherwise by vetting the difference between constructive and destructive criticism as requested twice above (assuming that is possible).


This has already been done more than adequately by other posters.

Fortigurn
Holy Ghost
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:32 am

Post by Fortigurn »

beastie wrote:
While an interesting hypothesis, it is beside the point of the thread. This is not intended to be a discussion of why LDS apologist and members may take criticism personally, but rather what types of criticism are effectual and workable in genera (based upon what you may value in the way of criticism of you personally)l, as contrasted with those that aren't. If you have some thought on topic, they would be appreciated.


I addressed this point. The only criticism that will feel "constructive" to the believer is the criticism that can be addressed in a way that makes believers feel as if continued belief is justified. Since many of the legitimate criticisms of the LDS church include criticisms that often make that continued belief seem questionable, believers will view even legitimate criticisms as "destructive", since they lead away from what they have already determined to be the truth.


Preach it.

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 22020
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Post by moksha »

wenglund wrote: Actually, I am talking about you and what kinds of criticisms of you that you may value. Now, you say that you would like to be told straight up when you are being stupid and irrational and other such things. But, I am not sure you value such criticism since you have been given that kind of criticism by various Church members and others, but to no avail?

Why is that?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, I value the kind of criticism that helps me out or puts another person at ease if I am bothering them. I like it best when they own the problem and use the two goods, a bad and a good formula.

For instance: Moksha, I notice you have good grooming habits and almost always have your hair combed. However it grosses me out when you pick your nose and eat it. Now this does not mean you are a bad person, and I realize it is my problem, but I wish you would not do it in front of me. By the way, you have very clean nasal passages.


See, that followed the formula and they owned the problem. It also helped me in making for future actions more pleasant. Hope that furnished an adequate example. I am sure this would work in discussing Joseph Smith and polygamy.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

User avatar
wenglund
God
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:25 pm

Post by wenglund »

Thanks Moksha. That was along the lines of what I was looking for.

Here are some other characteristics of constructive criticism that I came up with through examining the kinds of criticisms that have been directed towards me that I have valued and deemed workable, and which I believe may deemed the same by one and all and across the board:

1) The intent behind the criticisms are evidently progressive, edifying, and enriching. Since most of us are striving to become the very best people we can be, and we desire to be successful in a broad range of relationships and things, it would be logical to conclude that we would value the types of criticisms that will lend themselves to achieving those objectives. However, if the criticisms seems intent on tearing us down and/or limiting our progression, or if it strikes us as just whining and complaining about who and what we are, believe, or have done, then it is likely that we would be disinclined to accept them, and we may even be repelled by such criticism.

2) The nature of the criticisms are balanced, reasonable, timely, and consequential. In order for me or anyone else to accept criticism, the criticism has to make sense to each of us, appear to be fair in its assessment, be manageable in its scope and perspective, have pertinence to our present and future, and be viewed as meaningful in our lives. However, if all one hears is negativity and rejection and dismissals from certain parties, and/or if one is flooded with a litany of criticisms, and/or if the criticisms come across as strained, distorted, inane, or petty, then one will likely be disinclined to accept them, and may even be repelled by them.

3) The criticisms are conveyed in a respectful, kind, and empathetic ways. Since we humans are self-protective by nature, and we inherently have internal fortresses and weaponry to ensure that we each survive and thrive, then for others to be welcomed within our internal walls, and be permitted to influence us in the form of criticisms, requires at least some measure of finesse and diplomacy as well as the cultivation of trust, understanding, and security. However, if the criticisms are slung like arrows and mud in an insulting or hurtful way, or enflame and scorch with the fires of vindictiveness and resentment, or lack compassion and understanding, they most likely wont be accepted, and perhaps may even be stridently fought against.

4) The criticisms are couched in reasonable expectations and/or are left entirely to the agency of those being criticized. As the saying goes: "old habits often die hard". Accordingly, for criticisms to be effective, they may require a liberal measure of patience and encouragement before the criticisms may completely take hold and affect lasting change. And, as adults, we are less inclined to be monitored and pressed, but often prefer instead to simply be informed of the constructive criticism, and then left to determine for ourselves the whether's, how's, where's, and when's of the criticisms.

From your own experience in being criticized, would you agree with these characteristics of constructive and workable criticisms?

Can you think of any other characheristics?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Last edited by wenglund on Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Jason Bourne
God
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:00 pm

Re: Criticism

Post by Jason Bourne »

I would be interested in learning from each of you what types of criticism you may value as opposed to those criticisms to which you may have an aversion. Through your contribution, perhaps a list of principles for effective and productive criticism may emmerge, which we then may employ when appropriate with those we may wish to criticize.


I would be interested in your input as to whether the criticism I posted on the thread about editing history is productive and productive or mean spirited.

Thanks

Mister Scratch
Master Mahan
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:13 pm

Post by Mister Scratch »

wenglund wrote:
Who Knows wrote:I'll answer your question Wade.

I'd say it depends on how bad I've screwed up, or how bad I've screwed someone over. The bigger the screwing, the more/severe criticism I could (or should be able to) handle.


That makes sense. The challenge, though, as I see it, is that more often than not there isn't a concensus on whether someone was "screwed over" or not, and to what degree they may have been "screwed over" or not.

Where there isn't a concensus, or in other words in cases where you don't believe you have "screwed" anyone over, would criticism about you "screwing" someone over be valued and effectual?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


There is a "concensus" in at least one respect vis-à-vis the Church, Wade. As we have discussed elsewhere on this board, those who leave the Church feel unanimously that they have been "screwed," as evidenced by your complete and total inability to provide evidence for the existence of "Mr. Ds".

Mister Scratch
Master Mahan
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:13 pm

Post by Mister Scratch »

wenglund wrote:While an interesting hypothesis, it is beside the point of the thread. This is not intended to be a discussion of why LDS apologist and members may take criticism personally, but rather what types of criticism are effectual and workable in general (based upon what one may value in the way of criticism of you personally), as contrasted with those that aren't. If you have some thought on topic, they would be appreciated.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


You are shifting the goal posts, Wade. At first you insisted that the discussion ought to deal only with "personal criticism," but now, after having been told repeatedly that criticism of the Church is not "personal criticism," you are now claiming that you want to discuss "what types of criticism are effectual and workable in general." So, here you go again: criticism of institutions and/or entities is "workable," imo.

Mister Scratch
Master Mahan
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:13 pm

Post by Mister Scratch »

wenglund wrote:Thanks Moksha. That was along the lines of what I was looking for.

Here are some other characteristics of constructive criticism that I came up with through examining the kinds of criticisms that have been directed towards me that I have valued and deemed workable, and which I believe may deemed the same by one and all and across the board:

1) The intent behind the criticisms are evidently progressive, edifying, and enriching. Since most of us are striving to become the very best people we can be, and we desire to be successful in a broad range of relationships and things, it would be logical to conclude that we would value the types of criticisms that will lend themselves to achieving those objectives. However, if the criticisms seems intent on tearing us down and/or limiting our progression, or if it strikes us as just whining and complaining about who and what we are, believe, or have done, then it is likely that we would be disinclined to accept them, and we may even be repelled by such criticism.

2) The nature of the criticisms are balanced, reasonable, timely, and consequential. In order for me or anyone else to accept criticism, the criticism has to make sense to each of us, appear to be fair in its assessment, be manageable in its scope and perspective, have pertinence to our present and future, and be viewed as meaningful in our lives. However, if all one hears is negativity and rejection and dismissals from certain parties, and/or if one is flooded with a litany of criticisms, and/or if the criticisms come across as strained, distorted, inane, or petty, then one will likely be disinclined to accept them, and may even be repelled by them.

3) The criticisms are conveyed in a respectful, kind, and empathetic ways. Since we humans are self-protective by nature, and we inherently have internal fortresses and weaponry to ensure that we each survive and thrive, then for others to be welcomed within our internal walls, and be permitted to influence us in the form of criticisms, requires at least some measure of finesse and diplomacy as well as the cultivation of trust, understanding, and security. However, if the criticisms are slung like arrows and mud in an insulting or hurtful way, or enflame and scorch with the fires of vindictiveness and resentment, or lack compassion and understanding, they most likely wont be accepted, and perhaps may even be stridently fought against.

4) The criticisms are couched in reasonable expectations and/or are left entirely to the agency of those being criticized. As the saying goes: "old habits often die hard". Accordingly, for criticisms to be effective, they may require a liberal measure of patience and encouragement before the criticisms may completely take hold and affect lasting change. And, as adults, we are less inclined to be monitored and pressed, but often prefer instead to simply be informed of the constructive criticism, and then left to determine for ourselves the whether's, how's, where's, and when's of the criticisms.

From your own experience in being criticized, would you agree with these characteristics of constructive and workable criticisms?

Can you think of any other characheristics?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


An excellent, very interesting list of characteristics, Wade! However, I'd like to see it applied to a specific example, as is my wont. Could you please walk us through your schematic using the following example: "The Church has been dishonest about its past."

User avatar
wenglund
God
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:25 pm

Re: Criticism

Post by wenglund »

Jason Bourne wrote:
I would be interested in learning from each of you what types of criticism you may value as opposed to those criticisms to which you may have an aversion. Through your contribution, perhaps a list of principles for effective and productive criticism may emmerge, which we then may employ when appropriate with those we may wish to criticize.


I would be interested in your input as to whether the criticism I posted on the thread about editing history is productive and productive or mean spirited. Thanks


Hi Jersey Boy,

Prior to me giving my imput, I think it may be useful to first ask you some questions about how you may perceive your own criticism:

1) What is the intent behind your criticism? In other words, what do you hope to accomplish by posting the criticism here or whereever?

2) If you were to apply the same criticism to your personal history, would you consider it to be balanced, reasonable, timely, and consequential. In other words, is it the kind of criticism that you would value and think workable in terms of your personal history?

3) Do you believe you conveyed the criticism in a respectful, kind, and empathetic way?

4) How did you leave the criticism? By this I mean did you pass the criticism along as if to say: "here is something you may find useful. Feel free to do with it what you think best."? Or, do you plan to monitor with patience the changes presumably suggested in the criticism?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

User avatar
wenglund
God
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:25 pm

Post by wenglund »

Mister Scratch wrote:An excellent, very interesting list of characteristics, Wade! However, I'd like to see it applied to a specific example, as is my wont. Could you please walk us through your schematic using the following example: "The Church has been dishonest about its past."


Okay. Since my "schematic" entails characteristics that are applicable across the board, one may more easily determine if the characteristics apply in a given external criticism (criticism of other people or entities) by changing it to an internal criticism (criticism of oneself). In your case, that would mean changing the criticism to "Scratch has been dishonest about his past." Once one has done that, then it is simply a matter of determining how inclined one may be to accept the criticism as stated, and if not, why?

Give it a try, and let me know what you come up with. Feel free to use my "schematic" when evaluating the personal criticism of you. Once you have done that, we can then apply the same evaluation back to the example you proferred

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Last edited by wenglund on Mon Mar 05, 2007 3:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Jason Bourne
God
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:00 pm

Re: Criticism

Post by Jason Bourne »

wenglund wrote:
Jason Bourne wrote:
I would be interested in learning from each of you what types of criticism you may value as opposed to those criticisms to which you may have an aversion. Through your contribution, perhaps a list of principles for effective and productive criticism may emmerge, which we then may employ when appropriate with those we may wish to criticize.


I would be interested in your input as to whether the criticism I posted on the thread about editing history is productive and productive or mean spirited. Thanks


Hi Jersey Boy,

Prior to me giving my imput, I think it may be useful to first ask you some questions about how you may perceive your own criticism:

1) What is the intent behind your criticism? In other words, what do you hope to accomplish by posting the criticism here or whereever?

2) If you were to apply the same criticism to your personal history, would you consider it to be balanced, reasonable, timely, and consequential. In other words, is it the kind of criticism that you would value and think workable in terms of your personal history?

3) Do you believe you conveyed the criticism in a respectful, kind, and empathetic way?

4) How did you leave the criticism? By this I mean did you pass the criticism along as if to say: "here is something you may find useful. Feel free to do with it what you think best."? Or, do you plan to monitor with patience the changes presumably suggested in the criticism?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-



Well I will have to think about it. I am not sure I am ready to be analyzed by you Wade. I believe though you are a good fellow and have good intent.

User avatar
Jason Bourne
God
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:00 pm

Re: Criticism

Post by Jason Bourne »

I changed my mind. I will give you some answers.

1) What is the intent behind your criticism? In other words, what do you hope to accomplish by posting the criticism here or whereever?


I am not sure I would even call them criticisms. I pasted facts and evidnences that the historical record wsa tampered with and asked defenders what they made of that and how it could be justified.

2) If you were to apply the same criticism to your personal history, would you consider it to be balanced, reasonable, timely, and consequential. In other words, is it the kind of criticism that you would value and think workable in terms of your personal history?



I am not sure the comparison is applicable. But if I had one record and went out and put things in that I never said to make me look better then someone would be accurate in asking why I did this.

3) Do you believe you conveyed the criticism in a respectful, kind, and empathetic way?


Yes.

4) How did you leave the criticism? By this I mean did you pass the criticism along as if to say: "here is something you may find useful. Feel free to do with it what you think best."? Or, do you plan to monitor with patience the changes presumably suggested in the criticism?



I just posted and siad it troubled me and did anyone have anything that could help me understand how it is justifiable to edit events in such a way.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-[/quote]

User avatar
wenglund
God
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:25 pm

Re: Criticism

Post by wenglund »

Jason Bourne wrote:Well I will have to think about it. I am not sure I am ready to be analyzed by you Wade. I believe though you are a good fellow and have good intent.


That is kind of you to say. Please know that the sentiment is mutual.

And, since my questions were more designed to assist you in analyzing yourself and what you had written, rather than me doing the analyzing, I am glad you reconsidered.

Jason Bourne wrote:
1) What is the intent behind your criticism? In other words, what do you hope to accomplish by posting the criticism here or whereever?


I am not sure I would even call them criticisms. I pasted facts and evidnences that the historical record was tampered with and asked defenders what they made of that and how it could be justified.


Whether it may rightly be considered as criticism or not, there must have been some purpose in your innitiating that thread and/or expectation you may have desired would come from innitiating that thread--whether it be to simply inform or be informed, broaden perspectives and understandings, affect change of the past or for the future, etc. etc. What purpose did you hope would be served? (I think I may have surmised you purpose. Please see my comments below to see if I was correct.)

2) If you were to apply the same criticism to your personal history, would you consider it to be balanced, reasonable, timely, and consequential. In other words, is it the kind of criticism that you would value and think workable in terms of your personal history?


I am not sure the comparison is applicable. But if I had one record and went out and put things in that I never said to make me look better then someone would be accurate in asking why I did this.


I can understand how that question may come to mind given the stated perception.

However, regarding questions about what you or your biographer may have written in your personal history, and why it may have been written, wouldn't you want to at least know: a) whether the questioners are in a position to ask (in other words, what is it to them, and do they know enough about your personal history and the practice of writing personal histories to raise reasonable, informed, and pertinent questions)? or, b) why the select questions are being asked--i.e. the purpose behind the select questions?, why certain particular instances were selected for questioning?, and why are they being asked at this particular time?, or, c) whether the questions were of sufficient importance to the questioner to warrant a response?, or, d) whether sufficient context was provided in order to make the questions and the responses meaningful (such as how relatively common among your entire personal history were the things being questioned?, what the historiographic practices were at the time that your personal history was written?, who specifically wrote the portion of your personal history in question?, etc. etc.), or, e) wouldn't you have reasonable expectations that the explanations you provided in answer to the questions would be accepted with minds that would be open to empathetic understanding?

3) Do you believe you conveyed the criticism in a respectful, kind, and empathetic way?


Yes.

4) How did you leave the criticism? By this I mean did you pass the criticism along as if to say: "here is something you may find useful. Feel free to do with it what you think best."? Or, do you plan to monitor with patience the changes presumably suggested in the criticism?


I just posted and siad it troubled me and did anyone have anything that could help me understand how it is justifiable to edit events in such a way.


So, apparently, the intent behind your query wasn't so much to criticize (and thus, it may not be relevant to this thread), but rather to learn if there was justification for historical editing which would help ease your troubled mind.

As long as that is all you intended, and you were open to reasonable responses, then I can't see that as problematic--at least as far as your participation was concerned (other participants may have different motives in mind). Perhaps I will look in on the discussion to see for myself.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

User avatar
Runtu
God
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm

Post by Runtu »

I guess my issue is with the word "criticism" in the first place. There are three definitions in Webster's:

1 a: the act of criticizing usually unfavorably <seeking encouragement rather than criticism> b: a critical observation or remark <an unfair criticism> c: critique

2: the art of evaluating or analyzing works of art or literature; also : writings expressing such evaluation or analysis <an anthology of literary criticism>

3: the scientific investigation of literary documents (as the Bible) in regard to such matters as origin, text, composition, or history

I think Wade is getting at the first definition, as an unfavorable approach to Mormonism, whereas I'm more interested in the second two: evaluation and investigation into the origin and history of Mormonism. To me, the difference between the former and the latter two is the difference between "positive" and "negative" criticism. One can evaluate Mormonism and find it lacking in truth without being either unfair or even unfavorable.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington

User avatar
wenglund
God
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:25 pm

Post by wenglund »

Runtu wrote:I guess my issue is with the word "criticism" in the first place. There are three definitions in Webster's:

1 a: the act of criticizing usually unfavorably <seeking encouragement rather than criticism> b: a critical observation or remark <an unfair criticism> c: critique

2: the art of evaluating or analyzing works of art or literature; also : writings expressing such evaluation or analysis <an anthology of literary criticism>

3: the scientific investigation of literary documents (as the Bible) in regard to such matters as origin, text, composition, or history

I think Wade is getting at the first definition, as an unfavorable approach to Mormonism, whereas I'm more interested in the second two: evaluation and investigation into the origin and history of Mormonism. To me, the difference between the former and the latter two is the difference between "positive" and "negative" criticism. One can evaluate Mormonism and find it lacking in truth without being either unfair or even unfavorable.


Actually, I view my points as applicable regardless of the connotation of "cricism" one may use.

One can, indeed, evaluate most anything (including your perception of Mormonism) and find it lacking in truth. However, whether it is viewed as unfair and unfavorable, will be in the eye of the beholder.

More to the point, is whether the "criticism" (regardless of which connotation one may have in mind)) is valued and workable or not.

Those who employ the Golden Rule in their "criticism" of other people and entities; or in other words, if their "criticism" entails the characteristics I listed above; there is much greater chance that the "criticism" will be valued, workable, and accepted by other people and entities--particularly those towards whom the criticism is directed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Mister Scratch
Master Mahan
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:13 pm

Post by Mister Scratch »

wenglund wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:An excellent, very interesting list of characteristics, Wade! However, I'd like to see it applied to a specific example, as is my wont. Could you please walk us through your schematic using the following example: "The Church has been dishonest about its past."


Okay. Since my "schematic" entails characteristics that are applicable across the board, one may more easily determine if the characteristics apply in a given external criticism (criticism of other people or entities) by changing it to an internal criticism (criticism of oneself). In your case, that would mean changing the criticism to "Scratch has been dishonest about his past." Once one has done that, then it is simply a matter of determining how inclined one may be to accept the criticism as stated, and if not, why?


I am totally inclined to accept the criticism! I am happy to hear it out, and listen. However, the "criticism" is not true. I sincerely doubt that you will be able to produce any evidence that I have "been dishonest about [my] past."

Give it a try, and let me know what you come up with. Feel free to use my "schematic" when evaluating the personal criticism of you. Once you have done that, we can then apply the same evaluation back to the example you proferred

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Done and done.

User avatar
Coggins7
God
Posts: 3679
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 6:25 pm

Post by Coggins7 »

The primary problem I see here is that, in some seven years debating critics of the Church on the Internet, except for a few exceptions, the critics come to the table in one of two affective states:

1. Flaming anger and bitterness toward the Church and, as an extension of this, toward anyone to dares defend it, even in the most circumspect and innocuous manner.

2. A much calmer and more rational demenor, but with a psychological pose of intellectual superioroty to anyone witless or gullible enought to have fallen for the Church's vacuous lies and transparantly idiotic doctrines. This most often manifests itself as the repeated claim about the psychological dynamics of a majority of LDS and LDS apologists that they, as a class, cannot take criticism, cannot stand up under the heat of serious debate, are, in general, intellectually weak and or/poorly educated as a percentage of the general population, and have thin skins related to their general insecurity they feel internally toward their beliefs.

It is as if few of these critics have ever heard of FARMS, or Hugh Nibley, or Truman Madson, or any other number of the competent and brilliant LDS thinkers that have been coming up to the plate for generations.

This has led me, for quite some time, to the conclusion that, in fact, most active critics of the church have an agenda that is, not to put too fine a point on it, to delegitimate the church in the eyes and others and destroy the committment of active menbers in it. There is a payoff here in a psychological and emotional sense, but the purpose is not so much to seriously debate differences of principle as it is to vent displaced psychological turmoil and unresolved life issues in a forum that very effectively transferrs ownershop of those life issues to an entity that, at least in fantasy, can absorb and stand as a scapgoat for all the displaced and reframed internal conflicts and negative self perceptions and feelings such as guilt, anger, self pity, shame, hopelesness, or negative self worth that can create a overarching, free floating need to lash out at the world, especially aspects of that world that seem to impinge upon the defenses we have created to insulate us from the painful processes of growth necessary to work through those very developmental tasks and challenges of life.

this is not true of all those who are critical of the church, of course. This is an overview of what I've encountered on the Web for almost a decade, and is meant to indicate the active, committed, vigorous anti-Mormons within whatever media, and espeicaily the exmos who are among the most intensely hostile to the Church.

I have for a very long, long time, percieved that much of what we see in this world is a manifestation of the diverting of psychological and emotional energy away from the productive negotiating of serious life issues and challenges into intensive amateur or professional criticism of an entity that, for whatever reason, stands in as a vicarious symbol for the real issues with which the person is struggling. I do not think this is a unique feature of anti-Mormonism either. Much of what we see in the modern political arena, as to cause movements, especially the more extreme, is at least in part, a manifestation of the same principle, as is what we many times see in our modern pop culture (for example, Marilyn Manson parading his own personal demons upon a public stages when he would more productively (at least from a non-economic point of view) be in therapy or in Church working through them in an intellectually and psycholgically meaningful way.

What think ye Wade?

User avatar
wenglund
God
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:25 pm

Post by wenglund »

Mister Scratch wrote:I am totally inclined to accept the criticism! I am happy to hear it out, and listen. However, the "criticism" is not true. I sincerely doubt that you will be able to produce any evidence that I have "been dishonest about [my] past."


What I mean by "accept the criticism" is: the criticism is deeming valid, inculcated, and then whatever changes may be inferred in the criticism are thereafter implemented. So, while you may be open to listening to the criticism as stated, you evidently don't accept it, but at the very least you would react, understandably, by emphatically denying the truth of the criticism, and seriously questioning whether there is any evidence that can be produced in support of the criticism. In other words, the criticism, as stated, was not valued or workable with you.

The same, then, would be true for the example you presented to me--at least in the minds of faithful members who don't believe the Church has lied about its past. Simply leveling the charge as you did, would not be valued or workable with them. Can you now see and understand that?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

User avatar
Seven
Savior (resurrected)
Posts: 998
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 1:52 pm

Post by Seven »

Coggins7 wrote:
This has led me, for quite some time, to the conclusion that, in fact, most active critics of the church have an agenda that is, not to put too fine a point on it, to delegitimate the church in the eyes and others and destroy the committment of active menbers in it. There is a payoff here in a psychological and emotional sense, but the purpose is not so much to seriously debate differences of principle as it is to vent displaced psychological turmoil and unresolved life issues in a forum that very effectively transferrs ownershop of those life issues to an entity that, at least in fantasy, can absorb and stand as a scapgoat for all the displaced and reframed internal conflicts and negative self perceptions and feelings such as guilt, anger, self pity, shame, hopelesness, or negative self worth that can create a overarching, free floating need to lash out at the world, especially aspects of that world that seem to impinge upon the defenses we have created to insulate us from the painful processes of growth necessary to work through those very developmental tasks and challenges of life.

quote]


I don't fall into this definition and most of the "critics" I respect don't. For me it comes down to trying to understand how 2 faithful, active members of the church, with no intentions of leaving, can come away with such opposite interpretations of history and current teachings. It was only the critics, who understood why the practice of polygamy felt wicked to me. The apologist/TBMs on these boards are not bothered by anything I feel is immoral.

I would never desire for any human to go through the pain I did at learning church history and doctrine. The apologetic opinions and defense of anything unethical made me physically ill and ignore evidence. I never would have imagined to find myself fellowshipping with exMormons as a TBM, but the apologists could not relate to anything I was emotionally going through or critically thinking through.

I post and read here to discuss Mormonism and to fellowship with those who share my beliefs, discuss doctrine, discuss practices of the modern day church, and get feedback from those of all beliefs. I also enjoy learning history and information I may have missed. I am interested in why certain people are not bothered by the Mountain Meadows Massacre, edited Church history, racism with our African brothers and sisters, or married men having multiple sex partners. This baffles me. As members of the LDS church we are taught to have such high morals and ethics, so the apologetic world is so twisted to me. These are all the reasons I come here.

If I had to come up with an agenda for my presence here, I guess it would be to defend my character and others who are labeled as wicked & accused of "having an agenda to destroy the church" and using Church history as an excuse for leaving. I NEVER desired to be disturbed by Church doctrine or have sick feelings about Joseph Smith. It was not a choice for me. It also wasn't a choice to have the Fannie Alger barn incident shared with me. (by a TBM who loves talking about polygamy) Most if not all of of us here did not seek to lose our faith in the church. I am not working for Satan.

ignorance is the choice to not act or behave in accordance with regard to certain information in order to suit ones own needs or beliefs. For example, "I know better but I choose to ignore that and act in a way that behooves me."


Now you have been informed of at least one "critic" who does not fit your defintion of people like me. Can we see these kind of ignorant mischaracterizations end once and for all?
"Happiness is the object and design of our existence...
That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another." Joseph Smith

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], msnobody and 14 guests