Mister Scratch wrote: wenglund wrote:
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.
Incorrect. It is "workable"---meaning that it is up to *you* to do the word of supplying evidence.
Perhaps in your case I should have bolded the critical qualifying phrase: "as stated
", so that you wouldn't have incorrectly assumed that I was incorrect. Had I done so, then you may have correctly understood my statement to mean that the criticism, as is, didn't work, precisely because, at the very least, it lacked the requisite evidence needed to work for you. My apologies.
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?
No, since in our prior discussions on this topic I presented you with a panoply of evidence which simply frustrated you, and caused you to try and re-write the dictionary.
But, my comment didn't have in mind our prior discussion (however you may wish to characterize it in your own mind). It had only to do with the brief and unsubstantiated statement you made on this thread.
Now, if you wish to add our prior discussion to the mix (at least the relevant portions), then I am fine with that. I will then take a look at the nature of your "evidence", and attempt to relate that in similar ways to your personal past, with the intent of testing whether such criticism is valued or effective or not
. (I bolded this last statement so that you don't somehow forget what is the subject of this thread.)
Anyways, I think there are still two big holes in your argument, Wade, and I for one would be very interested in seeing them addressed.
1. You are still conflating "personal criticism" with "institutional criticism," and you have not yet explained why this is valid. I.e., why do you and other hardcore TBMs consider criticism of Joseph Smith or the Church to be "personal"? Why are you incapable of separating yourself from the institution? Further, is this tacit admission on your part that virtually your entire identity is determined by the Church?
Again, as per this thread, and the "argument" of this thread, I am not conflating "personal criticism" with "institutional criticism." Rather, I have been suggesting that there are general characteristics of valued and effectual criticism that apply in either case, and as such, one may understand what may work in terms of the one case (i,e, "institutional criticism"), by understanding what works in the other case (i.e. "personal criticism").
(I bolded this last statement so that you wouldn't mis it twice and go on re-asserting this irrelevant straw man). Did you get it that time?
2. I doubt that you can provide a single example of TBMs or apologists who have taken your schematic to heart. You want to pin all of this on critics, but does this work both ways? Do the folks on your side lead by example?
As a TBM and former apologist, myself, I stand as a single example that negates your doubt. And, I have gone one step further, and openned a thread at MA&D regarding this matter, and there have already been statements made by TBM's and apologist that echo, if not directly confirm, various points of my so-called schematic. Accounts from both TBM's and critics are beginning to amass regarding instances of where people from both sides have lead by example.
Clearly, nothing I have said on this thread could reasonably be interpreted to suggest that I am pinning this all on the critics. In fact, I have made explicit statements to the contrary here (do I need to go back and bold them as well for your benefit?). But, the thread I started at MA&D, and some of my comments there, should soon put the your concern entirely to rest (assuming that is possible).
Thanks, -Wade Englund-