Criticism

[_wenglund]

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.

I don't see where you have in any way invalidated the argument that I am attempting to make (except perhaps in your own mind and in the minds of those similarly disposed). In fact, your reluctance to answer my questions mitigates against your alleged invalidatution. The truth of the matter is, we haven't even scratched the surfuce here in determining what constitutes constructive vs. destructive criticism (which is what my carefully chosen questions are intended to explicate), so I can't see how something can be invalidated prior to even defining and clarifying what it is.

Now, if you wish to contribute to explicating the differences between constructive and destructive criticism, it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

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?

I didn't restrict my question to criticisms that occur on these boards. Now that that has been straightened out, would you care to try again?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Fortigurn]

I don't see where you have in any way invalidated the argument that I am attempting to make (except perhaps in your own mind and in the minds of those similarly disposed).

I have demonstrated that LDS apologists on MAD object to all forms of criticism, and even to the presence of critics on their forum (by their own admission). That means that you cannot claim that they only object to 'destructive criticism', invalidating your argument.

In fact, your reluctance to answer my questions mitigates against your alleged invalidatution.

Clearly you're not reading my posts, because I answered your questions directly:

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.

You wrote:

The truth of the matter is, we haven't even scratched the surfuce here in determining what constitutes constructive vs. destructive criticism (which is what my carefully chosen questions are intended to explicate), so I can't see how something can be invalidated prior to even defining and clarifying what it is.

I have demonstrated that LDS apologists on MAD object to all forms of criticism, and even to the presence of critics on their forum (by their own admission). That means that you cannot claim that they only object to 'destructive criticism', invalidating your argument.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Wade,

As long as criticism is reasonable, I accept and value it. It is something of a subjective judgment, of course, as to what is considered "reasonable". For example, I have received a great deal of criticism that was prompted by a misreading of my comments or a misunderstanding of my motives; usually in these cases I can correct the misunderstanding and the criticism is withdrawn. But if someone politely chastises me for holding irrational beliefs or for using an inappropriate tone in conversation, I consider that criticism very carefully. After all, the reason I seek out online forums like this one is to have intelligent conversations about belief systems, and to evaluate how well my own measures up against others'. It wouldn't make any sense to hold others to a higher standard than I hold myself.

On the other hand, I do not come to these forums to psychoanalyze people or to be psychoanalyzed myself. I would not want to receive overly personal criticism on a forum like this one, and I would not want people I don't even know to try to read my mind. Similarly, I do not try to read other people's minds. I take people's words at face value and try to avoid stereotyping.

Personal criticism I reserve for people I trust and people who trust me.

-CK

[_wenglund]

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.

I think you unintentionally illustrate why certain criticism are ineffectual. If either side is only capable of seeing and respecting one point of view, there is little chance that the criticism in either direction will be valued by those towards whom the criticism is directed. Instead, each party may at times view the other party's criticism as "character slander and offensive", and not be able to understand why the other party would view their criticism in that way.

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

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?

I am not equating the two. I am simply suggesting that there are efficacious and effectual ways to criticize in general, just as there un-efficacious and ineffectual ways of doing the same. And, by looking at what works for each of us when we are personally criticized, that may help vet what may work when criticizing other people and/or entities that those people may belong to.

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?

That depends on a number of factors that have yet to be explicated and considered (which is precisely what my questions are intentionally designed to do).

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.

Since each person's posts are a matter of historical record, would you object to poster's being subjected to the same rules of criticism as other historical accounts and historical figures, and vice versa? Would you object to "personal attacks" on anyone's character via historical records? In other words, if you don't wish to have your personal character criticized, then wouldn't consistency suggest that you not criticize the character of others (including historical figures)?

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

That may be a topic for another thread. But, I suspect that the answer is simply: the apologist have a different point of view than that of the critics.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Fortigurn]

Since each person's posts are a matter of historical record, would you object to poster's being subjected to the same rules of criticism as other historical accounts and historical figures, and vice versa? Would you object to "personal attacks" on anyone's character via historical records? In other words, if you don't wish to have your personal character criticized, then wouldn't consistency suggest that you not criticize the character of others (including historical figures)?

There's a difference between a personal attack and a legitimate criticism of character. Apologists object to any criticism of Smith's character, legitimate or not. They view any criticisms of his character as baseless and invalid personal attacks.

[_wenglund]

I don't see where you have in any way invalidated the argument that I am attempting to make (except perhaps in your own mind and in the minds of those similarly disposed).

I have demonstrated that LDS apologists on MAD object to all forms of criticism, and even to the presence of critics on their forum (by their own admission).

Apparently, we have a different understanding of what it means to "demonstrate". To my way of thinking, you tossing out a number of unsubstantiated assertion does not a "demonstrate" make.

That means that you cannot claim that they only object to 'destructive criticism', invalidating your argument.

Again, the notion of "destructive criticism" or "constructive criticism" haven't been vetted at all, let alone sufficiently, such that validation or invalidation is even reasonably possible.

In fact, your reluctance to answer my questions mitigates against your alleged invalidatution.

Clearly you're not reading my posts, because I answered your questions directly:[/quote]

Then how do you explain this statement in your post just previous to the one I am now responding to: "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."

Either you answered the questions, or you didn't because you think there would be no point. Which is it?

You wrote:

The truth of the matter is, we haven't even scratched the surfuce here in determining what constitutes constructive vs. destructive criticism (which is what my carefully chosen questions are intended to explicate), so I can't see how something can be invalidated prior to even defining and clarifying what it is.

I have demonstrated that LDS apologists on MAD object to all forms of criticism, and even to the presence of critics on their forum (by their own admission). That means that you cannot claim that they only object to 'destructive criticism', invalidating your argument.

See above.

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

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

The problem is, once again, the inability to distinguish between oneself and one's LDS beliefs. It all feels personal to the True Believer, because they are so defined by their religion.

Apologists do not have a problem with criticisms when they feel that they can successfully address them in a way that retains belief. But the problem is that there are serious problems facing Mormonism that are not so readily reconciled. Joseph Smith' polyandry is one example - so when critics keep returning to that issue, it feels like "destructive" criticism.

in my opinion, the real differentiation between constructive and destructive criticism is whether or not the criticism is designed to reveal the truth of whatever matter is being discussed. Believers would probably agree with that definition, but since they "know" the truth must include maintaining belief in the LDS church due to their spiritual testimonies, then criticisms that easily lead to serious questioning of that truth, no matter how plainly or politely stated, feel "destructive" to them. That is why it is simply a no-win situation, and, in my opinion, always will be pointless.

True believers - those who are so absolutely convinced that they now believe in the "truth" that nothing will persuade them otherwise, and often they refuse to even consider that they may be wrong - are going to feel personally attacked in conversations with critics, regardless of how careful the critics may try to be. The one exception seems to be critics that seem to hold out hope of reconversion or conversion. (such as those who criticize some aspect of the LDS belief system, but in other ways, seems to be persuaded by other LDS points - for example, If I recall correctly, a popular either EV or Catholic critic on ZLMB often stated he thought the Book of Mormon was difficult to explain and was, in a way, "miraculous" - he could get away with much more than other critics).

[_wenglund]

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-

[_wenglund]

Since each person's posts are a matter of historical record, would you object to poster's being subjected to the same rules of criticism as other historical accounts and historical figures, and vice versa? Would you object to "personal attacks" on anyone's character via historical records? In other words, if you don't wish to have your personal character criticized, then wouldn't consistency suggest that you not criticize the character of others (including historical figures)?

There's a difference between a personal attack and a legitimate criticism of character. Apologists object to any criticism of Smith's character, legitimate or not. They view any criticisms of his character as baseless and invalid personal attacks.

You are right, there is a difference between personal attacks and legitimate criticisms of character. What you may not understand, though, is that such differences are more often than not in the eye of the beholder. What you may view as a personal attack on your character, may be to someone else (an LDS apologist perhaps) a legitimate criticism of your character, and vice versa.

Since there is little chance of seeing eye-to-eye in such cases. the question then becomes whether criticisms in such cases are valued and workable?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-