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 »

Lucretia MacEvil wrote:Wade, maybe we can take a little shortcut ... is there any conceivable criticism of the church that would be acceptable to you, and which you wouldn't take personally? Please be specific. Thanks.


For the umpteenth time, this isn't intended to be a discussion about whether I or anyone else would take, or have taken, criticisms about the Church personally or not. I freely admit that I have and would--and I think rightly so.

Rather, it is about whether certain kinds of criticism are valued and efficacious, regardless of whether one is a believer or a critic.

In terms of valued and effective criticism of the Church, as long as the criticism includes the characteristic I have listed previously, I would be inclined to accept it.

There are numerous specific examples that I can point to. Pick any one of the talks from the General Conference issues of the Ensign for ample examples, if not also the rebukes and admonitions from the Lord and his chosen leaders throughout the LDS canon of scripture regarding repentance and bettering ourselves as a people and taking upon us the image and nature of Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

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

Post by beastie »

Wade, maybe we can take a little shortcut ... is there any conceivable criticism of the church that would be acceptable to you, and which you wouldn't take personally? Please be specific. Thanks.


Lucretia, dahling, it just must be "edifying" criticism.
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

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

Post by Mister Scratch »

wenglund wrote:
Lucretia MacEvil wrote:Wade, maybe we can take a little shortcut ... is there any conceivable criticism of the church that would be acceptable to you, and which you wouldn't take personally? Please be specific. Thanks.


For the umpteenth time, this isn't intended to be a discussion about whether I or anyone else would take, or have taken, criticisms about the Church personally or not. I freely admit that I have and would--and I think rightly so.

Rather, it is about whether certain kinds of criticism are valued and efficacious, regardless of whether one is a believer or a critic.

In terms of valued and effective criticism of the Church, as long as the criticism includes the characteristic I have listed previously, I would be inclined to accept it.

There are numerous specific examples that I can point to. Pick any one of the talks from the General Conference issues of the Ensign for ample examples, if not also the rebukes and admonitions from the Lord and his chosen leaders throughout the LDS canon of scripture regarding repentance and bettering ourselves as a people and taking upon us the image and nature of Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


What a load of tripe, Wade! As if comments from the GAs at General Conference constitute real criticism of the Church! Are you kidding with this baloney? Let's face facts here: the sole purpose of this thread is for you to try---yet again---to shut up the critics you don't like.

You say that you "rightly" take criticism of the Church personally (thus admitting at last, what I'd suspected all along, which is that you did indeed conflate), and yet you refuse to say why!?! You are trying to set up this scenario in which "everybody plays fair," but your scenario is not equal. Most critics do not mind (nor take personally) criticism of the Church. And yet so many TBMs such as you get completely bent out of shape. Why is that, I wonder?

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

Post by Mister Scratch »

wenglund wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote: Lol... Wade, come on now. It is very silly indeed to think that mere one-sentence phrases constitute legitimate and serious criticism. I seriously doubt that *any* one-liner critiques are going to be "workable" as per your schematics. More over, I doubt any criticism "lacking the requisite evidence" is going to work very well either!


Yet, a "mere one-sentence phrase" is all you offered by way of an example of criticism on this thread. Silly, indeed!

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.)


Good. Bring it on.


Umm...first things first. You need to first bring on your evidence. If you wish to research our past discussions and post the relevant items here, I am fine with that.

Please keep in mind, though, that the purpose in doing this on this thread, is not to actually argue the points of whether you or the Church have lied about your respective pasts, but by way of providing specific examples to illustrate whether these kinds of criticisms are valued and effective or not.


Yeah, funny. This means one of two things: you are too lazy to go and find the posts, or that you want me to go to the trouble of posting them so that you can dismiss them with a wave of your arm, "Nope, sorry, Mr. Scratch, but I don't find those criticisms valuable and effective!"

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?


Yes, I get it: you are conflating the two. Your claim that there are "general characteristics of valued and effectual criticism" assumes that critiques of institutions and persons can be the same (more or less). What ground do you think you will lose by admitting this? I don't know why you think I am crafting a straw man, Wade. Do you not want people to say that "virtually your entire identity is determined by the Church"?


I have no interest in pursuing this "yes it is....no it isn't...yes it is" discussion, and so I will just leave it at that.


See my post above, where I point out the place where you finally admit that yes, in fact, you are conflating. You admitted it yourself, and so I will just leave it at that. ; )

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.


Where, Wade? Where have you ever acknowledged and accepted a single criticism of the Church?


I think this last question deserves an answer!

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.


No, I am asking for a very specific kind of example: When has a hardcored TBM such as yourself ever acknowledged and accepted a single criticism of the Church?

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?).


No, but you do need to provide specific examples. You often seem hesitant to do that, which always makes me think you are trying to pull a fast one.... ; )

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-


I haven't seen any comments over there that supply the sort of evidence I am asking for.


I also see no value in pursuing a discussion where clear evidence to me is no evidence to you, and I will just leave it at that as well.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-[/quote][/quote]

Post the quotes then, Wade. Quit trying to evade and just supply the concrete, specific evidence.

User avatar
Lucretia MacEvil
God
Posts: 1558
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:01 am

Post by Lucretia MacEvil »

wenglund wrote:
Lucretia MacEvil wrote:Wade, maybe we can take a little shortcut ... is there any conceivable criticism of the church that would be acceptable to you, and which you wouldn't take personally? Please be specific. Thanks.


For the umpteenth time, this isn't intended to be a discussion about whether I or anyone else would take, or have taken, criticisms about the Church personally or not. I freely admit that I have and would--and I think rightly so.

Rather, it is about whether certain kinds of criticism are valued and efficacious, regardless of whether one is a believer or a critic.

In terms of valued and effective criticism of the Church, as long as the criticism includes the characteristic I have listed previously, I would be inclined to accept it.

There are numerous specific examples that I can point to. Pick any one of the talks from the General Conference issues of the Ensign for ample examples, if not also the rebukes and admonitions from the Lord and his chosen leaders throughout the LDS canon of scripture regarding repentance and bettering ourselves as a people and taking upon us the image and nature of Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Isn't it a tad unrealistic to ask critics to restrict themselves to quoting the Ensign to you?

User avatar
Lucretia MacEvil
God
Posts: 1558
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:01 am

Post by Lucretia MacEvil »

Mister Scratch wrote:
wenglund wrote:
Lucretia MacEvil wrote:Wade, maybe we can take a little shortcut ... is there any conceivable criticism of the church that would be acceptable to you, and which you wouldn't take personally? Please be specific. Thanks.


For the umpteenth time, this isn't intended to be a discussion about whether I or anyone else would take, or have taken, criticisms about the Church personally or not. I freely admit that I have and would--and I think rightly so.

Rather, it is about whether certain kinds of criticism are valued and efficacious, regardless of whether one is a believer or a critic.

In terms of valued and effective criticism of the Church, as long as the criticism includes the characteristic I have listed previously, I would be inclined to accept it.

There are numerous specific examples that I can point to. Pick any one of the talks from the General Conference issues of the Ensign for ample examples, if not also the rebukes and admonitions from the Lord and his chosen leaders throughout the LDS canon of scripture regarding repentance and bettering ourselves as a people and taking upon us the image and nature of Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


What a load of tripe, Wade! As if comments from the GAs at General Conference constitute real criticism of the Church! Are you kidding with this baloney? Let's face facts here: the sole purpose of this thread is for you to try---yet again---to shut up the critics you don't like.

You say that you "rightly" take criticism of the Church personally (thus admitting at last, what I'd suspected all along, which is that you did indeed conflate), and yet you refuse to say why!?! You are trying to set up this scenario in which "everybody plays fair," but your scenario is not equal. Most critics do not mind (nor take personally) criticism of the Church. And yet so many TBMs such as you get completely bent out of shape. Why is that, I wonder?


Well, Wade is nothing if he isn't transparent.

Wade, people are going to keep on saying the church isn't true. Can't CBT help you out with the "taking offense" thing, or are you just going to keep on taking offense (to nobody's detriment but your own)?

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

Post by wenglund »

Mister Scratch wrote:
wenglund wrote:
Lucretia MacEvil wrote:Wade, maybe we can take a little shortcut ... is there any conceivable criticism of the church that would be acceptable to you, and which you wouldn't take personally? Please be specific. Thanks.


For the umpteenth time, this isn't intended to be a discussion about whether I or anyone else would take, or have taken, criticisms about the Church personally or not. I freely admit that I have and would--and I think rightly so.

Rather, it is about whether certain kinds of criticism are valued and efficacious, regardless of whether one is a believer or a critic.

In terms of valued and effective criticism of the Church, as long as the criticism includes the characteristic I have listed previously, I would be inclined to accept it.

There are numerous specific examples that I can point to. Pick any one of the talks from the General Conference issues of the Ensign for ample examples, if not also the rebukes and admonitions from the Lord and his chosen leaders throughout the LDS canon of scripture regarding repentance and bettering ourselves as a people and taking upon us the image and nature of Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


What a load of tripe, Wade! As if comments from the GAs at General Conference constitute real criticism of the Church! Are you kidding with this baloney? Let's face facts here: the sole purpose of this thread is for you to try---yet again---to shut up the critics you don't like.

You say that you "rightly" take criticism of the Church personally (thus admitting at last, what I'd suspected all along, which is that you did indeed conflate), and yet you refuse to say why!?! You are trying to set up this scenario in which "everybody plays fair," but your scenario is not equal. Most critics do not mind (nor take personally) criticism of the Church. And yet so many TBMs such as you get completely bent out of shape. Why is that, I wonder?


I appreciate you posting this, if for no other reason than it is an excellent example of the kind of criticism that is devoid of value and efficacy--which is why it will go un-responded to, as well as the rest of what you may wish to say on this thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

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

Post by wenglund »

Lucretia MacEvil wrote:
wenglund wrote:
Lucretia MacEvil wrote:Wade, maybe we can take a little shortcut ... is there any conceivable criticism of the church that would be acceptable to you, and which you wouldn't take personally? Please be specific. Thanks.


For the umpteenth time, this isn't intended to be a discussion about whether I or anyone else would take, or have taken, criticisms about the Church personally or not. I freely admit that I have and would--and I think rightly so.

Rather, it is about whether certain kinds of criticism are valued and efficacious, regardless of whether one is a believer or a critic.

In terms of valued and effective criticism of the Church, as long as the criticism includes the characteristic I have listed previously, I would be inclined to accept it.

There are numerous specific examples that I can point to. Pick any one of the talks from the General Conference issues of the Ensign for ample examples, if not also the rebukes and admonitions from the Lord and his chosen leaders throughout the LDS canon of scripture regarding repentance and bettering ourselves as a people and taking upon us the image and nature of Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Isn't it a tad unrealistic to ask critics to restrict themselves to quoting the Ensign to you?


Yes, it would be...which is why I didn't, nor would I, suggest that they should...and no reasonable person would think that I had.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

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

Post by wenglund »

Lucretia MacEvil wrote:Well, Wade is nothing if he isn't transparent.

Wade, people are going to keep on saying the church isn't true. Can't CBT help you out with the "taking offense" thing, or are you just going to keep on taking offense (to nobody's detriment but your own)?


I think you are confusing "taking it personal" with "taking offense". To me, they mean different things. I view "take it personal" to mean "it applies to me". How I may react to what is view as personal, is a different matter. And, there are a broad ranger of ways that I may react depending upon what has been applied to me--from appreciative to offended, from joyful to sorrowful, etc..

As it is, when people say that the Church isn't true, that is a statement of their belief (or disbelief), which happens to be different from my own. And contrary to your wild conjecture, I don't see it as offensive because it is meaningless in light of my own beliefs. So, your point about CBT in this instance, doesn't apply.

But, again, the issue of this thread is not whether I take things personally that are said about the Church, but whether certain criticisms proffered from either side are valued and efficacious or not. People simply declaring, by way of criticism, a belief that is different from my own (such as were they to say that my Church isn't true), would not qualify as valued or efficacious criticism, just as were I to respond in-kind (like saying that their belief is not true about the Church).

Are you beginning to get a sense now for what the topic of this thread is really about?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

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

Post by beastie »

Are you beginning to get a sense now for what the topic of this thread is really about?


Wade - you're amazing. Really. You can sit there and construct a theory that demands criticism be "edifying", which obviously means, to a true believer, maintaining faith in the LDS church at all costs, and then pretend you are actually presenting a theory that isn't full of BS?

Of course critics can criticize - as long as it is edifying, and doesn't threaten faith. Just tell us we need to shorten our sacrament meetings. Tell us we need to actually follow the prophet instead of just pretending to. Tell us anything, other than historical facts that threaten belief. Who do you think you are fooling, other than, of course, first and foremost, yourself? Do you ever wonder, at any time, in a secret part of your mind, why your theories always seem to entail critics remaining silent about the most important issues regarding LDS faith?
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

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

Post by wenglund »

beastie wrote:
Are you beginning to get a sense now for what the topic of this thread is really about?


Wade - you're amazing. Really. You can sit there and construct a theory that demands criticism be "edifying", which obviously means, to a true believer, maintaining faith in the LDS church at all costs, and then pretend you are actually presenting a theory that isn't full of BS?

Of course critics can criticize - as long as it is edifying, and doesn't threaten faith. Just tell us we need to shorten our sacrament meetings. Tell us we need to actually follow the prophet instead of just pretending to. Tell us anything, other than historical facts that threaten belief. Who do you think you are fooling, other than, of course, first and foremost, yourself? Do you ever wonder, at any time, in a secret part of your mind, why your theories always seem to entail critics remaining silent about the most important issues regarding LDS faith?


How you continue to get "at all cost" (and other suggestions of a position so extreme I don't recognize it myself) from what I have said, particularly when I have repeatedly corrected you (as the ultimate authority of what I say and believe), is puzzling to me. However, you seem intent on arguing against that straw man rather than engaging what I actually said. So, I see no value in me remaining in dialogue with you, but I will leave you to go the rounds with your straw man.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 12 guests