Criticism

[Gadianton]

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).

While an interesting hypothesis, it is beside the point of the thread. This is not intended to be a discussion of why LDS apologist and members may take criticism personally, but rather what types of criticism are effectual and workable in general (based upon what one may value in the way of criticism of you personally), as contrasted with those that aren't. If you have some thought on topic, they would be appreciated.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Fortigurn]

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.

They aren't unsubstantiated. I referred you to their own words.

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.

We don't need to define these terms to demonstrate their response to criticism and critics generally./

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?

It's the third option which hasn't occurred to you - I said that I didn't see the point, but I answered them anyway. You can see that I answered them. I even quoted my answers for you.

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

Why? What's the point? What is the argument you are trying to make? What are you trying to achieve?

[_wenglund]

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

Why? What's the point? What is the argument you are trying to make? What are you trying to achieve?

I am attempting to demonstrate that you and others may be relatively clueless as to what constitues "contructive criticism" and how to convey constructive criticism in a valued and effectual way.

You can attempt to demonstrate otherwise by vetting the difference between constructive and destructive criticism as requested twice above (assuming that is possible). ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

While an interesting hypothesis, it is beside the point of the thread. This is not intended to be a discussion of why LDS apologist and members may take criticism personally, but rather what types of criticism are effectual and workable in genera (based upon what you may value in the way of criticism of you personally)l, as contrasted with those that aren't. If you have some thought on topic, they would be appreciated.

I addressed this point. The only criticism that will feel "constructive" to the believer is the criticism that can be addressed in a way that makes believers feel as if continued belief is justified. Since many of the legitimate criticisms of the LDS church include criticisms that often make that continued belief seem questionable, believers will view even legitimate criticisms as "destructive", since they lead away from what they have already determined to be the truth.

[_Fortigurn]

I am attempting to demonstrate that you and others may be relatively clueless as to what constitues "contructive criticism" and how to convey constructive criticism in a valued and effectual way.

Great, when are you going to start?

You can attempt to demonstrate otherwise by vetting the difference between constructive and destructive criticism as requested twice above (assuming that is possible).

This has already been done more than adequately by other posters.

[_Fortigurn]

While an interesting hypothesis, it is beside the point of the thread. This is not intended to be a discussion of why LDS apologist and members may take criticism personally, but rather what types of criticism are effectual and workable in genera (based upon what you may value in the way of criticism of you personally)l, as contrasted with those that aren't. If you have some thought on topic, they would be appreciated.

I addressed this point. The only criticism that will feel "constructive" to the believer is the criticism that can be addressed in a way that makes believers feel as if continued belief is justified. Since many of the legitimate criticisms of the LDS church include criticisms that often make that continued belief seem questionable, believers will view even legitimate criticisms as "destructive", since they lead away from what they have already determined to be the truth.

Preach it.

[_moksha]

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-

Wade, I value the kind of criticism that helps me out or puts another person at ease if I am bothering them. I like it best when they own the problem and use the two goods, a bad and a good formula.

For instance: Moksha, I notice you have good grooming habits and almost always have your hair combed. However it grosses me out when you pick your nose and eat it. Now this does not mean you are a bad person, and I realize it is my problem, but I wish you would not do it in front of me. By the way, you have very clean nasal passages.

See, that followed the formula and they owned the problem. It also helped me in making for future actions more pleasant. Hope that furnished an adequate example. I am sure this would work in discussing Joseph Smith and polygamy.

[Gadianton]

Thanks Moksha. That was along the lines of what I was looking for.

Here are some other characteristics of constructive criticism that I came up with through examining the kinds of criticisms that have been directed towards me that I have valued and deemed workable, and which I believe may deemed the same by one and all and across the board:

1) The intent behind the criticisms are evidently progressive, edifying, and enriching. Since most of us are striving to become the very best people we can be, and we desire to be successful in a broad range of relationships and things, it would be logical to conclude that we would value the types of criticisms that will lend themselves to achieving those objectives. However, if the criticisms seems intent on tearing us down and/or limiting our progression, or if it strikes us as just whining and complaining about who and what we are, believe, or have done, then it is likely that we would be disinclined to accept them, and we may even be repelled by such criticism.

2) The nature of the criticisms are balanced, reasonable, timely, and consequential. In order for me or anyone else to accept criticism, the criticism has to make sense to each of us, appear to be fair in its assessment, be manageable in its scope and perspective, have pertinence to our present and future, and be viewed as meaningful in our lives. However, if all one hears is negativity and rejection and dismissals from certain parties, and/or if one is flooded with a litany of criticisms, and/or if the criticisms come across as strained, distorted, inane, or petty, then one will likely be disinclined to accept them, and may even be repelled by them.

3) The criticisms are conveyed in a respectful, kind, and empathetic ways. Since we humans are self-protective by nature, and we inherently have internal fortresses and weaponry to ensure that we each survive and thrive, then for others to be welcomed within our internal walls, and be permitted to influence us in the form of criticisms, requires at least some measure of finesse and diplomacy as well as the cultivation of trust, understanding, and security. However, if the criticisms are slung like arrows and mud in an insulting or hurtful way, or enflame and scorch with the fires of vindictiveness and resentment, or lack compassion and understanding, they most likely wont be accepted, and perhaps may even be stridently fought against.

4) The criticisms are couched in reasonable expectations and/or are left entirely to the agency of those being criticized. As the saying goes: "old habits often die hard". Accordingly, for criticisms to be effective, they may require a liberal measure of patience and encouragement before the criticisms may completely take hold and affect lasting change. And, as adults, we are less inclined to be monitored and pressed, but often prefer instead to simply be informed of the constructive criticism, and then left to determine for ourselves the whether's, how's, where's, and when's of the criticisms.

From your own experience in being criticized, would you agree with these characteristics of constructive and workable criticisms?

Can you think of any other characheristics?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Jason Bourne]

I would be interested in learning from each of you what types of criticism you may value as opposed to those criticisms to which you may have an aversion. Through your contribution, perhaps a list of principles for effective and productive criticism may emmerge, which we then may employ when appropriate with those we may wish to criticize.

I would be interested in your input as to whether the criticism I posted on the thread about editing history is productive and productive or mean spirited.

Thanks

[_Mister Scratch]

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-

There is a "concensus" in at least one respect vis-a-vis the Church, Wade. As we have discussed elsewhere on this board, those who leave the Church feel unanimously that they have been "screwed," as evidenced by your complete and total inability to provide evidence for the existence of "Mr. Ds".