Criticism

[_Fortigurn]

This isn't a discussion of why people have been banned, or what may or may not have happened at MA&D.

Wade, I am addressing directly your comments here:

I get the impression from various critics that LDS apologist can't handle much if any criticism against the Church. The critics point to various things (numerous bannings from websites like FAIR/MA&D, the lack of participation here by certain apologists, etc.) as evidence in support of this alleged aversion to criticism.

Previously, I have pointed out that there have long been, and still are, critics who are permitted to post on FAIR/MA&D, which then would suggest to the reasonably minded that there is at least some tolerance of criticism on the part of apologists.

[...]

I submit that it isn't that either party has a complete aversion to criticism, but rather their aversion is understandably towards certain types of criticism. Each party's aversion is to destructive criticism, not constructive criticism.

I have given evidence that the LDS apologists on MAD cannot handle much, if any, criticism against the church. I have given evidence that they are averse to all kinds of criticism, not merely 'destructive criticism', and that the very presence of critics on MAD disturbs them.

I do not believe that your case (that both parties only object to destructive criticism), can possibly be sustained in the face of the evidence.

[_wenglund]

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.

No, I think the reason I am not coming across is because you and others aren't answering the questions that I have actually asked. You each seem intent on making points that are...well...beside the point.

Care to try again?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Physics Guy]

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.

No, I think the reason I am not coming across is because you and others aren't answering the questions that I have actually asked. You each seem intent on making points that are...well...beside the point.

Care to try again?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sure. You asked what kinds of criticism I find useful or enlightening, and I said that I find criticism of the LDS Church to be useful and enlightening. As for what seems to be your side-question (i.e., "Do you ever find personalized, ad hominem attack to be helpful?") I would have to say, No. Argumentum ad hominem has never been helpful to me, in my opinion.

Edited to add: Wade, if I were an institution such as the LDS Church, I would really love it and appreciate it if people criticized me for whitewashing history, or if I kept my finances a secret. However, I am not an institution such as the LDS Church, and so this seems a rather moot point. Also, who are you to be speaking on behalf of the Church this way? Again, I have to point out what seems to be a conflation of "personal" with "institutional" on your part.

[_wenglund]

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!

I looked in vain for a direct answer to the question that I asked. Care to try again?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

This isn't a discussion of why people have been banned, or what may or may not have happened at MA&D.

Wade, I am addressing directly your comments here:

I get the impression from various critics that LDS apologist can't handle much if any criticism against the Church. The critics point to various things (numerous bannings from websites like FAIR/MA&D, the lack of participation here by certain apologists, etc.) as evidence in support of this alleged aversion to criticism.

Previously, I have pointed out that there have long been, and still are, critics who are permitted to post on FAIR/MA&D, which then would suggest to the reasonably minded that there is at least some tolerance of criticism on the part of apologists.

[...]

I submit that it isn't that either party has a complete aversion to criticism, but rather their aversion is understandably towards certain types of criticism. Each party's aversion is to destructive criticism, not constructive criticism.

I have given evidence that the LDS apologists on MAD cannot handle much, if any, criticism against the church. I have given evidence that they are averse to all kinds of criticism, not merely 'destructive criticism', and that the very presence of critics on MAD disturbs them.

I do not believe that your case (that both parties only object to destructive criticism), can possibly be sustained in the face of the evidence.

Well...let's test your theory by having you address the questions that I have asked on this thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

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.

No, I think the reason I am not coming across is because you and others aren't answering the questions that I have actually asked. You each seem intent on making points that are...well...beside the point.

Care to try again?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sure. You asked what kinds of criticism I find useful or enlightening, and I said that I find criticism of the LDS Church to be useful and enlightening. As for what seems to be your side-question (i.e., "Do you ever find personalized, ad hominem attack to be helpful?") I would have to say, No. Argumentum ad hominem has never been helpful to me, in my opinion.

On this thread I have yet to use the words "ad hominem" or "attack". Instead, I used the word "criticism". Now that that has been straightened out, care to try again?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Fortigurn]

Well...let's test your theory by having you address the questions that I have asked on this thread.

I can answer them, but since the argument you're attempting to use them to support has already been invalidated, I don't see the point. I have no objection to constructive criticism. I have an objection to destructive criticism. This is not the same as the average LDS apologist on MAD, who has a demonstrable objection to all forms of criticism, and also to critics generally, even if they aren't saying anything.

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

No, I think the reason I am not coming across is because you and others aren't answering the questions that I have actually asked. You each seem intent on making points that are...well...beside the point.

Care to try again?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sure. You asked what kinds of criticism I find useful or enlightening, and I said that I find criticism of the LDS Church to be useful and enlightening. As for what seems to be your side-question (i.e., "Do you ever find personalized, ad hominem attack to be helpful?") I would have to say, No. Argumentum ad hominem has never been helpful to me, in my opinion.

On this thread I have yet to use the words "ad hominem" or "attack". Instead, I used the word "criticism". Now that that has been straightened out, care to try again?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't find *any* personalized criticism of me on these boards to be useful at all, Wade. I think the best criticism is aimed at institutions and arguments.

How does that answer suit you?

[_Seven]

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?

No, this is something I don't understand. Can't you retain a testimony and still be honest about ethical behavior? If you believe leaders in the church are fallible, then why would this be offensive? Joseph Smith is not Jesus Christ. I think some have elevated him to such a level, that it's like taking the Lord's name in vain if you utter one criticism of the man.

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

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[/quote]

I don't understand why you equate personal criticism of critics to criticisms of the church. How are they the same?
Are you Joseph Smith?
Can we talk about Joseph and Fanny Alger without a critic being accused of trying to slander the Prophet to justify their loss of faith? This is the type of criticism that I see frequently from apologists instead of dealing with the topic.

I would value an apologist pointing out flaws in the critical interpretation of history. Correcting statements that may have been taken out of context by a critic is something I value. I see no value in making personal attacks on another poster's character.

I would value examining the reasons why critics feel bothered by * and why apologists are not.

[_Who Knows]

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.