Criticism

[_Polygamy Porter]

I have an aversion to mean-spirited personal criticism. I also do not like to see others slandered as well. Criticism that helps refine our understanding is welcomed, as is criticism that keeps us honest.

I agree.
I also do not like to see apologists/TBMs accuse critics of using disturbing behavior of Joseph, or church hisotry as an excuse or justification for losing their testimony. It's the reason they lost their testimony. This accusation is character slander and offensive. I have seen Why Me and Wade post comments like this here, and it's the general attitude of TBMs at MAD toward critics.

Can you understand how, in similar ways, the criticism of Joseph Smith and Church history by former members may be viewed as "character slander and offensive" by those who retain their testimony?

Are there types of criticism of critics that you do value?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sure, just like the public criticism of Warren Jeffs and the FLDS by outsiders may viewed as "character slander and offensive" by FLDS who retain their testimony.

The difference between members of the SLC LDS cult and non/ex members is the SLC LDS only see Jeffs as the piece of filth he is. The rest of us see one in the same. in my opinion, members of both cults are duped on the same level.

[_Polygamy Porter]

Wade, the problem is that the criticism of the LDS church and of Joseph Smith that is most straight to the point, is that the LDS church isn't true and that Joseph Smith was a guy who amassed a lot of power and influence with his body of followers, and took advantage of that with his sexual practices, and that he literally made up things like the Book of Abraham.

We're not all on this and other boards to say that the Relief Socity program is a little misguided, or to complain about Home Teaching. It's Joseph Smith and the veracity of the LDS church and the LDS scriptures.

I agree that personal attacks against other posters is harmful and not conducive to meaningful conversation. But criticism of the truth claims of the church, of the LDS scriptures, and of Joseph Smith's character and claims of prophethood is part and parcel, and if someone gets offended by such criticism, then the best suggestion would be for them to stick to "fellowship" boards.

http://nauvoo.com is home sweet home for Wade.

[_wenglund]

Wade, the problem is that the criticism of the LDS church and of Joseph Smith that is most straight to the point, is that the LDS church isn't true and that Joseph Smith was a guy who amassed a lot of power and influence with his body of followers, and took advantage of that with his sexual practices, and that he literally made up things like the Book of Abraham.

We're not all on this and other boards to say that the Relief Socity program is a little misguided, or to complain about Home Teaching. It's Joseph Smith and the veracity of the LDS church and the LDS scriptures.

I agree that personal attacks against other posters is harmful and not conducive to meaningful conversation. But criticism of the truth claims of the church, of the LDS scriptures, and of Joseph Smith's character and claims of prophethood is part and parcel, and if someone gest offended by such criticism, then the best suggestion would be for them to stick to "fellowship" boards.

I seem to have failed to successfully convey my point to you as well. So, let me try it this way. Do you value any and all forms of criticism (particularly the kind that is "straight to the point) of your personal beliefs and character?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I have an aversion to mean-spirited personal criticism. I also do not like to see others slandered as well. Criticism that helps refine our understanding is welcomed, as is criticism that keeps us honest.

I agree.
I also do not like to see apologists/TBMs accuse critics of using disturbing behavior of Joseph, or church hisotry as an excuse or justification for losing their testimony. It's the reason they lost their testimony. This accusation is character slander and offensive. I have seen Why Me and Wade post comments like this here, and it's the general attitude of TBMs at MAD toward critics.

Can you understand how, in similar ways, the criticism of Joseph Smith and Church history by former members may be viewed as "character slander and offensive" by those who retain their testimony?

Are there types of criticism of critics that you do value?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sure, just like the public criticism of Warren Jeffs and the FLDS by outsiders may viewed as "character slander and offensive" by FLDS who retain their testimony.

The difference between members of the SLC LDS cult and non/ex members is the SLC LDS only see Jeffs as the piece of filth he is. The rest of us see one in the same. in my opinion, members of both cults are duped on the same level.

Evidently, I didn't succeed in getting my point across to you either. But, let me ask if you would value you, yourself, being described as a "piece of filth" and criticized as being "duped" and categorized with a pejorative label like "cult"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Polygamy Porter]

Sure, just like the public criticism of Warren Jeffs and the FLDS by outsiders may viewed as "character slander and offensive" by FLDS who retain their testimony.

The difference between members of the SLC LDS cult and non/ex members is the SLC LDS only see Jeffs as the piece of filth he is. The rest of us see one in the same. in my opinion, members of both cults are duped on the same level.

Evidently, I didn't succeed in getting my point across to you either. But, let me ask if you would value you, yourself, being described as a "piece of filth" and criticized as being "duped" and categorized with a pejorative label like "cult"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

We are talking about Joe Smith who is dead. Say what ever you like about me when I am dead I don't give a flying ratts arse.

However, while I am still alive, if I am a f'ck-up and do something stupid or irrational like believe that the ghost of a white indian appeared to a man, then by all means tell me straight up, "Hey Porter! You are a F'CK UP!"

Yes Wade, from the information I have gathered about both Joe Smith, I think he was a piece of filth and I believe you are a fool for believing in his tripe.

Mormons are comprised of the deceived and the deceivers. In my view, you appear to be more of a deceiver.

[_Fortigurn]

Wade, the problem is that on forums like MAD, critics are banned without warning, en masse, even if they haven't been active for two weeks or more. They aren't simply banned for destructive criticism, they are banned because MAD doesn't want too many critics on the board. They have said as much. They want to ensure that the critics are significantly outnumbered by the LDS members, and that the critics do not have the same opportunity to articulate their criticism as the LDS members have to articulate their apologetics.

Not only that, but on forums like MAD the LDS posters exhibit a standard of behavior which is invariably more destructive, more aggressive, more offensive, and decidedly less Christlike than the critics. Vicious personal attacks and hateful comments are made, and yet the moderators do not ban the LDS members. What happens is that if the critic objects to being treated in such a way they are ignored, or told that they deserve it, or told that LDS members feel under pressure from critics and need an outlet, or that the behaviour exhibited isn't that bad after all. If the critic continues to object to being treated like dirt, they are eventually banned themselves.

[Gadianton]

We are talking about Joe Smith who is dead. Say what ever you like about me when I am dead I don't give a flying ratts arse.

However, while I am still alive, if I am a f'ck-up and do something stupid or irrational like believe that the ghost of a white indian appeared to a man, then by all means tell me straight up, "Hey Porter! You are a F'CK UP!"

Yes Wade, from the information I have gathered about both Joe Smith, I think he was a piece of filth and I believe you are a fool for believing in his tripe.

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-

[_wenglund]

Wade, the problem is that on forums like MAD, critics are banned without warning, en masse, even if they haven't been active for two weeks or more. They aren't simply banned for destructive criticism, they are banned because MAD doesn't want too many critics on the board. They have said as much. They want to ensure that the critics are significantly outnumbered by the LDS members, and that the critics do not have the same opportunity to articulate their criticism as the LDS members have to articulate their apologetics.

Not only that, but on forums like MAD the LDS posters exhibit a standard of behavior which is invariably more destructive, more aggressive, more offensive, and decidedly less Christlike than the critics. Vicious personal attacks and hateful comments are made, and yet the moderators do not ban the LDS members. What happens is that if the critic objects to being treated in such a way they are ignored, or told that they deserve it, or told that LDS members feel under pressure from critics and need an outlet, or that the behaviour exhibited isn't that bad after all. If the critic continues to object to being treated like dirt, they are eventually banned themselves.

Hi Fortigurn,

This isn't a discussion of why people have been banned, or what may or may not have happened at MA&D. Instead, it is a discussion of criticism--specifically, what kinds of criticisms are valued and workable with each of us, individually, and what kinds aren't, and how that compares and contrast with the kinds of criticism we each employ towards others.

If you have something to say on topic, it would be appreciated.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

I have an aversion to mean-spirited personal criticism. I also do not like to see others slandered as well. Criticism that helps refine our understanding is welcomed, as is criticism that keeps us honest.

I agree.
I also do not like to see apologists/TBMs accuse critics of using disturbing behavior of Joseph, or church hisotry as an excuse or justification for losing their testimony. It's the reason they lost their testimony. This accusation is character slander and offensive. I have seen Why Me and Wade post comments like this here, and it's the general attitude of TBMs at MAD toward critics.

Can you understand how, in similar ways, the criticism of Joseph Smith and Church history by former members may be viewed as "character slander and offensive" by those who retain their testimony?

Are there types of criticism of critics that you do value?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sure, just like the public criticism of Warren Jeffs and the FLDS by outsiders may viewed as "character slander and offensive" by FLDS who retain their testimony.

The difference between members of the SLC LDS cult and non/ex members is the SLC LDS only see Jeffs as the piece of filth he is. The rest of us see one in the same. in my opinion, members of both cults are duped on the same level.

Evidently, I didn't succeed in getting my point across to you either. But, let me ask if you would value you, yourself, being described as a "piece of filth" and criticized as being "duped" and categorized with a pejorative label like "cult"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The reason your point is not coming across, Wade, is because you are conflating "the personal" with "entities." Nobody is calling YOU as "piece of filth" or "a cult." People sometimes say that about Joseph Smith or The Church, but YOU are not the Church, and thus criticism of the Church cannot and should not be misconstrued by you or anyone else as being "personal criticism." Once more: nobody is criticizing you personally. Unless you want to somehow claim that YOU are actually the Church, then your argument doesn't really make much sense.... Know what I mean?

Edited to add: Wade, I think you are going to have to explain how a criticism such as "The Church has been dishonest about itself in the past" can somehow be transformed into a personal criticism of Wade Englund.

[_Polygamy Porter]

We are talking about Joe Smith who is dead. Say what ever you like about me when I am dead I don't give a flying ratts arse.

However, while I am still alive, if I am a f'ck-up and do something stupid or irrational like believe that the ghost of a white indian appeared to a man, then by all means tell me straight up, "Hey Porter! You are a F'CK UP!"

Yes Wade, from the information I have gathered about both Joe Smith, I think he was a piece of filth and I believe you are a fool for believing in his tripe.

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-

Good hell Wade, you are babbling. I counted eight "you"s.

I fully understand that many members of the LDS Inc cult will never see the truth. That does not bother me, because those that I care about and love are now out, including my wife and all of my kids!

While I would like to get my inlaws out, it is not a priority.

by the way, last Friday at work I had an opportunity to share the truth with two non Mormon coworkers.

Both guys are black and I overheard them talking about Mitt. I told them that I am a former Mormon and could clear up ANY question they had.

One asked if it was true that blacks were looked down on and were told they would not get to see god, up until 1980 or something.

I spent a good 20 minutes going down every racist teaching from briggie to peterson to mckonkie right up to the 1978 date. I ended by showing them the sure sign of the nail handshake to give to the next set of pesky missionaries that bothered them.. "What is that?" "Has it a name?" ahh hahh ha hah good times!

Each night that you goto sleep, remember one thing Wade, Polygamy Porter and tens of thousands of other former Mormons are spreading the truth to the un garmented masses!