Criticism

[_Mister Scratch]

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-

You are shifting the goal posts, Wade. At first you insisted that the discussion ought to deal only with "personal criticism," but now, after having been told repeatedly that criticism of the Church is not "personal criticism," you are now claiming that you want to discuss "what types of criticism are effectual and workable in general." So, here you go again: criticism of institutions and/or entities is "workable," in my opinion.

[_Mister Scratch]

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-

An excellent, very interesting list of characteristics, Wade! However, I'd like to see it applied to a specific example, as is my wont. Could you please walk us through your schematic using the following example: "The Church has been dishonest about its past."

[_wenglund]

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

Hi JB,

Prior to me giving my imput, I think it may be useful to first ask you some questions about how you may perceive your own criticism:

1) What is the intent behind your criticism? In other words, what do you hope to accomplish by posting the criticism here or whereever?

2) If you were to apply the same criticism to your personal history, would you consider it to be balanced, reasonable, timely, and consequential. In other words, is it the kind of criticism that you would value and think workable in terms of your personal history?

3) Do you believe you conveyed the criticism in a respectful, kind, and empathetic way?

4) How did you leave the criticism? By this I mean did you pass the criticism along as if to say: "here is something you may find useful. Feel free to do with it what you think best."? Or, do you plan to monitor with patience the changes presumably suggested in the criticism?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Gadianton]

An excellent, very interesting list of characteristics, Wade! However, I'd like to see it applied to a specific example, as is my wont. Could you please walk us through your schematic using the following example: "The Church has been dishonest about its past."

Okay. Since my "schematic" entails characteristics that are applicable across the board, one may more easily determine if the characteristics apply in a given external criticism (criticism of other people or entities) by changing it to an internal criticism (criticism of oneself). In your case, that would mean changing the criticism to "Scratch has been dishonest about his past." Once one has done that, then it is simply a matter of determining how inclined one may be to accept the criticism as stated, and if not, why?

Give it a try, and let me know what you come up with. Feel free to use my "schematic" when evaluating the personal criticism of you. Once you have done that, we can then apply the same evaluation back to the example you proferred

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

Hi JB,

Prior to me giving my imput, I think it may be useful to first ask you some questions about how you may perceive your own criticism:

1) What is the intent behind your criticism? In other words, what do you hope to accomplish by posting the criticism here or whereever?

2) If you were to apply the same criticism to your personal history, would you consider it to be balanced, reasonable, timely, and consequential. In other words, is it the kind of criticism that you would value and think workable in terms of your personal history?

3) Do you believe you conveyed the criticism in a respectful, kind, and empathetic way?

4) How did you leave the criticism? By this I mean did you pass the criticism along as if to say: "here is something you may find useful. Feel free to do with it what you think best."? Or, do you plan to monitor with patience the changes presumably suggested in the criticism?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well I will have to think about it. I am not sure I am ready to be analyzed by you Wade. I believe though you are a good fellow and have good intent.

[_Jason Bourne]

I changed my mind. I will give you some answers.

1) What is the intent behind your criticism? In other words, what do you hope to accomplish by posting the criticism here or whereever?

I am not sure I would even call them criticisms. I pasted facts and evidnences that the historical record wsa tampered with and asked defenders what they made of that and how it could be justified.

2) If you were to apply the same criticism to your personal history, would you consider it to be balanced, reasonable, timely, and consequential. In other words, is it the kind of criticism that you would value and think workable in terms of your personal history?

I am not sure the comparison is applicable. But if I had one record and went out and put things in that I never said to make me look better then someone would be accurate in asking why I did this.

3) Do you believe you conveyed the criticism in a respectful, kind, and empathetic way?

Yes.

4) How did you leave the criticism? By this I mean did you pass the criticism along as if to say: "here is something you may find useful. Feel free to do with it what you think best."? Or, do you plan to monitor with patience the changes presumably suggested in the criticism?

I just posted and siad it troubled me and did anyone have anything that could help me understand how it is justifiable to edit events in such a way.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-[/quote]

[_wenglund]

Well I will have to think about it. I am not sure I am ready to be analyzed by you Wade. I believe though you are a good fellow and have good intent.

That is kind of you to say. Please know that the sentiment is mutual.

And, since my questions were more designed to assist you in analyzing yourself and what you had written, rather than me doing the analyzing, I am glad you reconsidered.

1) What is the intent behind your criticism? In other words, what do you hope to accomplish by posting the criticism here or whereever?

I am not sure I would even call them criticisms. I pasted facts and evidnences that the historical record was tampered with and asked defenders what they made of that and how it could be justified.

Whether it may rightly be considered as criticism or not, there must have been some purpose in your innitiating that thread and/or expectation you may have desired would come from innitiating that thread--whether it be to simply inform or be informed, broaden perspectives and understandings, affect change of the past or for the future, etc. etc. What purpose did you hope would be served? (I think I may have surmised you purpose. Please see my comments below to see if I was correct.)

2) If you were to apply the same criticism to your personal history, would you consider it to be balanced, reasonable, timely, and consequential. In other words, is it the kind of criticism that you would value and think workable in terms of your personal history?

I am not sure the comparison is applicable. But if I had one record and went out and put things in that I never said to make me look better then someone would be accurate in asking why I did this.

I can understand how that question may come to mind given the stated perception.

However, regarding questions about what you or your biographer may have written in your personal history, and why it may have been written, wouldn't you want to at least know: a) whether the questioners are in a position to ask (in other words, what is it to them, and do they know enough about your personal history and the practice of writing personal histories to raise reasonable, informed, and pertinent questions)? or, b) why the select questions are being asked--i.e. the purpose behind the select questions?, why certain particular instances were selected for questioning?, and why are they being asked at this particular time?, or, c) whether the questions were of sufficient importance to the questioner to warrant a response?, or, d) whether sufficient context was provided in order to make the questions and the responses meaningful (such as how relatively common among your entire personal history were the things being questioned?, what the historiographic practices were at the time that your personal history was written?, who specifically wrote the portion of your personal history in question?, etc. etc.), or, e) wouldn't you have reasonable expectations that the explanations you provided in answer to the questions would be accepted with minds that would be open to empathetic understanding?

3) Do you believe you conveyed the criticism in a respectful, kind, and empathetic way?

Yes.

4) How did you leave the criticism? By this I mean did you pass the criticism along as if to say: "here is something you may find useful. Feel free to do with it what you think best."? Or, do you plan to monitor with patience the changes presumably suggested in the criticism?

I just posted and siad it troubled me and did anyone have anything that could help me understand how it is justifiable to edit events in such a way.

So, apparently, the intent behind your query wasn't so much to criticize (and thus, it may not be relevant to this thread), but rather to learn if there was justification for historical editing which would help ease your troubled mind.

As long as that is all you intended, and you were open to reasonable responses, then I can't see that as problematic--at least as far as your participation was concerned (other participants may have different motives in mind). Perhaps I will look in on the discussion to see for myself.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

I guess my issue is with the word "criticism" in the first place. There are three definitions in Webster's:

1 a: the act of criticizing usually unfavorably <seeking encouragement rather than criticism> b: a critical observation or remark <an unfair criticism> c: critique

2: the art of evaluating or analyzing works of art or literature; also : writings expressing such evaluation or analysis <an anthology of literary criticism>

3: the scientific investigation of literary documents (as the Bible) in regard to such matters as origin, text, composition, or history

I think Wade is getting at the first definition, as an unfavorable approach to Mormonism, whereas I'm more interested in the second two: evaluation and investigation into the origin and history of Mormonism. To me, the difference between the former and the latter two is the difference between "positive" and "negative" criticism. One can evaluate Mormonism and find it lacking in truth without being either unfair or even unfavorable.

[_wenglund]

I guess my issue is with the word "criticism" in the first place. There are three definitions in Webster's:

1 a: the act of criticizing usually unfavorably <seeking encouragement rather than criticism> b: a critical observation or remark <an unfair criticism> c: critique

2: the art of evaluating or analyzing works of art or literature; also : writings expressing such evaluation or analysis <an anthology of literary criticism>

3: the scientific investigation of literary documents (as the Bible) in regard to such matters as origin, text, composition, or history

I think Wade is getting at the first definition, as an unfavorable approach to Mormonism, whereas I'm more interested in the second two: evaluation and investigation into the origin and history of Mormonism. To me, the difference between the former and the latter two is the difference between "positive" and "negative" criticism. One can evaluate Mormonism and find it lacking in truth without being either unfair or even unfavorable.

Actually, I view my points as applicable regardless of the connotation of "cricism" one may use.

One can, indeed, evaluate most anything (including your perception of Mormonism) and find it lacking in truth. However, whether it is viewed as unfair and unfavorable, will be in the eye of the beholder.

More to the point, is whether the "criticism" (regardless of which connotation one may have in mind)) is valued and workable or not.

Those who employ the Golden Rule in their "criticism" of other people and entities; or in other words, if their "criticism" entails the characteristics I listed above; there is much greater chance that the "criticism" will be valued, workable, and accepted by other people and entities--particularly those towards whom the criticism is directed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

An excellent, very interesting list of characteristics, Wade! However, I'd like to see it applied to a specific example, as is my wont. Could you please walk us through your schematic using the following example: "The Church has been dishonest about its past."

Okay. Since my "schematic" entails characteristics that are applicable across the board, one may more easily determine if the characteristics apply in a given external criticism (criticism of other people or entities) by changing it to an internal criticism (criticism of oneself). In your case, that would mean changing the criticism to "Scratch has been dishonest about his past." Once one has done that, then it is simply a matter of determining how inclined one may be to accept the criticism as stated, and if not, why?

I am totally inclined to accept the criticism! I am happy to hear it out, and listen. However, the "criticism" is not true. I sincerely doubt that you will be able to produce any evidence that I have "been dishonest about [my] past."

Give it a try, and let me know what you come up with. Feel free to use my "schematic" when evaluating the personal criticism of you. Once you have done that, we can then apply the same evaluation back to the example you proferred

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Done and done.