Criticism

[_Coggins7]

The primary problem I see here is that, in some seven years debating critics of the Church on the Internet, except for a few exceptions, the critics come to the table in one of two affective states:

1. Flaming anger and bitterness toward the Church and, as an extension of this, toward anyone to dares defend it, even in the most circumspect and innocuous manner.

2. A much calmer and more rational demenor, but with a psychological pose of intellectual superioroty to anyone witless or gullible enought to have fallen for the Church's vacuous lies and transparantly idiotic doctrines. This most often manifests itself as the repeated claim about the psychological dynamics of a majority of LDS and LDS apologists that they, as a class, cannot take criticism, cannot stand up under the heat of serious debate, are, in general, intellectually weak and or/poorly educated as a percentage of the general population, and have thin skins related to their general insecurity they feel internally toward their beliefs.

It is as if few of these critics have ever heard of FARMS, or Hugh Nibley, or Truman Madson, or any other number of the competent and brilliant LDS thinkers that have been coming up to the plate for generations.

This has led me, for quite some time, to the conclusion that, in fact, most active critics of the church have an agenda that is, not to put too fine a point on it, to delegitimate the church in the eyes and others and destroy the committment of active menbers in it. There is a payoff here in a psychological and emotional sense, but the purpose is not so much to seriously debate differences of principle as it is to vent displaced psychological turmoil and unresolved life issues in a forum that very effectively transferrs ownershop of those life issues to an entity that, at least in fantasy, can absorb and stand as a scapgoat for all the displaced and reframed internal conflicts and negative self perceptions and feelings such as guilt, anger, self pity, shame, hopelesness, or negative self worth that can create a overarching, free floating need to lash out at the world, especially aspects of that world that seem to impinge upon the defenses we have created to insulate us from the painful processes of growth necessary to work through those very developmental tasks and challenges of life.

this is not true of all those who are critical of the church, of course. This is an overview of what I've encountered on the Web for almost a decade, and is meant to indicate the active, committed, vigorous anti-Mormons within whatever media, and espeicaily the exmos who are among the most intensely hostile to the Church.

I have for a very long, long time, percieved that much of what we see in this world is a manifestation of the diverting of psychological and emotional energy away from the productive negotiating of serious life issues and challenges into intensive amateur or professional criticism of an entity that, for whatever reason, stands in as a vicarious symbol for the real issues with which the person is struggling. I do not think this is a unique feature of anti-Mormonism either. Much of what we see in the modern political arena, as to cause movements, especially the more extreme, is at least in part, a manifestation of the same principle, as is what we many times see in our modern pop culture (for example, Marilyn Manson parading his own personal demons upon a public stages when he would more productively (at least from a non-economic point of view) be in therapy or in Church working through them in an intellectually and psycholgically meaningful way.

What think ye Wade?

[_wenglund]

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."

What I mean by "accept the criticism" is: the criticism is deeming valid, inculcated, and then whatever changes may be inferred in the criticism are thereafter implemented. So, while you may be open to listening to the criticism as stated, you evidently don't accept it, but at the very least you would react, understandably, by emphatically denying the truth of the criticism, and seriously questioning whether there is any evidence that can be produced in support of the criticism. In other words, the criticism, as stated, was not valued or workable with you.

The same, then, would be true for the example you presented to me--at least in the minds of faithful members who don't believe the Church has lied about its past. Simply leveling the charge as you did, would not be valued or workable with them. Can you now see and understand that?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Seven]

This has led me, for quite some time, to the conclusion that, in fact, most active critics of the church have an agenda that is, not to put too fine a point on it, to delegitimate the church in the eyes and others and destroy the committment of active menbers in it. There is a payoff here in a psychological and emotional sense, but the purpose is not so much to seriously debate differences of principle as it is to vent displaced psychological turmoil and unresolved life issues in a forum that very effectively transferrs ownershop of those life issues to an entity that, at least in fantasy, can absorb and stand as a scapgoat for all the displaced and reframed internal conflicts and negative self perceptions and feelings such as guilt, anger, self pity, shame, hopelesness, or negative self worth that can create a overarching, free floating need to lash out at the world, especially aspects of that world that seem to impinge upon the defenses we have created to insulate us from the painful processes of growth necessary to work through those very developmental tasks and challenges of life.

quote]

I don't fall into this definition and most of the "critics" I respect don't. For me it comes down to trying to understand how 2 faithful, active members of the church, with no intentions of leaving, can come away with such opposite interpretations of history and current teachings. It was only the critics, who understood why the practice of polygamy felt wicked to me. The apologist/TBMs on these boards are not bothered by anything I feel is immoral.

I would never desire for any human to go through the pain I did at learning church history and doctrine. The apologetic opinions and defense of anything unethical made me physically ill and ignore evidence. I never would have imagined to find myself fellowshipping with exMormons as a TBM, but the apologists could not relate to anything I was emotionally going through or critically thinking through.

I post and read here to discuss Mormonism and to fellowship with those who share my beliefs, discuss doctrine, discuss practices of the modern day church, and get feedback from those of all beliefs. I also enjoy learning history and information I may have missed. I am interested in why certain people are not bothered by the Mountain Meadows Massacre, edited Church history, racism with our African brothers and sisters, or married men having multiple sex partners. This baffles me. As members of the LDS church we are taught to have such high morals and ethics, so the apologetic world is so twisted to me. These are all the reasons I come here.

If I had to come up with an agenda for my presence here, I guess it would be to defend my character and others who are labeled as wicked & accused of "having an agenda to destroy the church" and using Church history as an excuse for leaving. I NEVER desired to be disturbed by Church doctrine or have sick feelings about Joseph Smith. It was not a choice for me. It also wasn't a choice to have the Fannie Alger barn incident shared with me. (by a TBM who loves talking about polygamy) Most if not all of of us here did not seek to lose our faith in the church. I am not working for Satan.

ignorance is the choice to not act or behave in accordance with regard to certain information in order to suit ones own needs or beliefs. For example, "I know better but I choose to ignore that and act in a way that behooves me."

Now you have been informed of at least one "critic" who does not fit your defintion of people like me. Can we see these kind of ignorant mischaracterizations end once and for all?

[_beastie]

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.

This is an inherently subjective evaluation. For an individual who is completely convinced of his/her own rightness in believing God told him/her that the church is true, no criticism that could lead others to seriously doubt that truthfulness is going to be viewed as “progressive, edifying, and enriching.” This is directly connected to my earlier comments about why dialogue between the true believer and the critic is inevitably going to be plagued with accusations of bad behavior on the part of the critic, even when the critic is doing his/her best to remain on topic and civil. If someone truly, truly believes the church is “true”, no matter what information may be uncovered, then it is going to be deemed anti-progressive, anti-edifying, anti-enriching, for example, to talk about Joseph Smith” polyandry when it clearly causes people to doubt – even if the information is factual. And we see this sensitivity time and again on the part of believers.

I was going to respond to each of your points, but really, each one is plagued by the same problem I just explained above.

[_beastie]

Wade,

Here is an excellent example of my point from the mirror thread you started on MAD. Charity's reply:

Anytime someone personally attacks Joseph Smith or any of the other prophets I have to go away for a while before I can decide if I want to respond or if I can keep my temper enough to respond. For instance, in the PBS thread running right now, the report calls Joseph Smith a "shaman." I think that is disgusting.
Those who charge that plural marriage was lust-driven are particulalry offensive. It is the personal attack factor that is so disturbing.

I try to remember that mocking is a serious offense before God and the person doing the mocking is in big trouble. That way I can temper the anger with pity.

Someone who finds it "disgusting" that the report called Joseph Smith a "shaman" is just too sensitive to take part in any conversations with a critic. Yet she can't stay away from doing so.

She reveals a lot about her character with her last statement: she finds comfort in remembering that the critic is going to be in big, big, trouble with God. I see this type of thinking in EVs I live around quite a bit. The way they seem to revel in talking about the suffering of the damned in hell is - well, creepy is the first word that comes to my mind. Disturbing. Sad.

[_wenglund]

The primary problem I see here is that, in some seven years debating critics of the Church on the Internet, except for a few exceptions, the critics come to the table in one of two affective states:

1. Flaming anger and bitterness toward the Church and, as an extension of this, toward anyone to dares defend it, even in the most circumspect and innocuous manner.

2. A much calmer and more rational demenor, but with a psychological pose of intellectual superioroty to anyone witless or gullible enought to have fallen for the Church's vacuous lies and transparantly idiotic doctrines. This most often manifests itself as the repeated claim about the psychological dynamics of a majority of LDS and LDS apologists that they, as a class, cannot take criticism, cannot stand up under the heat of serious debate, are, in general, intellectually weak and or/poorly educated as a percentage of the general population, and have thin skins related to their general insecurity they feel internally toward their beliefs.

It is as if few of these critics have ever heard of FARMS, or Hugh Nibley, or Truman Madson, or any other number of the competent and brilliant LDS thinkers that have been coming up to the plate for generations.

This has led me, for quite some time, to the conclusion that, in fact, most active critics of the church have an agenda that is, not to put too fine a point on it, to delegitimate the church in the eyes and others and destroy the committment of active menbers in it. There is a payoff here in a psychological and emotional sense, but the purpose is not so much to seriously debate differences of principle as it is to vent displaced psychological turmoil and unresolved life issues in a forum that very effectively transferrs ownershop of those life issues to an entity that, at least in fantasy, can absorb and stand as a scapgoat for all the displaced and reframed internal conflicts and negative self perceptions and feelings such as guilt, anger, self pity, shame, hopelesness, or negative self worth that can create a overarching, free floating need to lash out at the world, especially aspects of that world that seem to impinge upon the defenses we have created to insulate us from the painful processes of growth necessary to work through those very developmental tasks and challenges of life.

this is not true of all those who are critical of the church, of course. This is an overview of what I've encountered on the Web for almost a decade, and is meant to indicate the active, committed, vigorous anti-Mormons within whatever media, and espeicaily the exmos who are among the most intensely hostile to the Church.

I have for a very long, long time, percieved that much of what we see in this world is a manifestation of the diverting of psychological and emotional energy away from the productive negotiating of serious life issues and challenges into intensive amateur or professional criticism of an entity that, for whatever reason, stands in as a vicarious symbol for the real issues with which the person is struggling. I do not think this is a unique feature of anti-Mormonism either. Much of what we see in the modern political arena, as to cause movements, especially the more extreme, is at least in part, a manifestation of the same principle, as is what we many times see in our modern pop culture (for example, Marilyn Manson parading his own personal demons upon a public stages when he would more productively (at least from a non-economic point of view) be in therapy or in Church working through them in an intellectually and psycholgically meaningful way.

What think ye Wade?

Hi Loran,

You may very well be on to something there. However, as I intimated to Beastie, at least in terms of this thread, I prefer to keep it focused on the behavior (i.e. criticism), and whether the behavior as practiced here and on other LDS related discussion boards is functional and efficacious or not, rather than on whatever psychology may or may not be driving the behavior here and elsewhere.

From my own lengthy experience on the web, I have come to realize that very little that has transpires between critics and apologists that has ever amounted to much of anything of mutual value. More often than not, the exchanges end up being a colossal waste of time and effort, and too often they end up with either or both parties feeling hurt, misunderstood, frustrated, and so forth. In short, the way things have been approached over the years doesn't work.

I think that once we all begin to recognize that the prevailing approach doesn't work, the enterprise will either be abandoned for more productive endevours, or there may be an attempt to find a workable approach, and this in spite of whatever psychology my have driven the prevailing approach.

At least, that is my hope.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

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.

This is an inherently subjective evaluation. For an individual who is completely convinced of his/her own rightness in believing God told him/her that the church is true, no criticism that could lead others to seriously doubt that truthfulness is going to be viewed as “progressive, edifying, and enriching.” This is directly connected to my earlier comments about why dialogue between the true believer and the critic is inevitably going to be plagued with accusations of bad behavior on the part of the critic, even when the critic is doing his/her best to remain on topic and civil. If someone truly, truly believes the church is “true”, no matter what information may be uncovered, then it is going to be deemed anti-progressive, anti-edifying, anti-enriching, for example, to talk about Joseph Smith” polyandry when it clearly causes people to doubt – even if the information is factual. And we see this sensitivity time and again on the part of believers.

I was going to respond to each of your points, but really, each one is plagued by the same problem I just explained above.

To a point I agree. However, that subjectivity unavoidably exists regardless of who may be on the receiving end of the criticism. I don't see that as problematic, though. It just is...and we are better served to find functional ways of living with it.

But, I am not a cynical as you about the dialogue between critic and believers invariably being plagued with accusations of bad behavior. If the accusations are leveled by either side, I would submit that it was because one or more of the characteristics of constructive criticism I have listed were absent or violated to one degree or another.

Unless one's intent behind one's criticism is to cast doubt on what some may be convinced is true, I don't see strong conviction as necessarily a complete impediment to criticism of any or all sorts. Even people, such as yourself, with great conviction in certain things, can be open to constructive criticism regarding those conviction. Can't they? Aren't you?

Granted, if one's intent is solely to cast doubt on someone else's conviction of truth in that which they value and prefer as a means of progression, there may be limited, if any, success in realizing that intent. But, that is as it should be, and I would submit that such intents are ill-advised, and one would do well to avoid that kind of counterproductively motivated criticisms--if for no other reason than it just doesn't work to well. This, I believe to be the case regardless of whatever the conviction and chosen path of progression may be.

This is not to suggest that one is thereby prevented in any way from pursuading others, through criticism, from changing their convictions (either by way of strengthening their conviction or shifting it to another conviction). If the intent behind the criticism is to enhance the human condition and better enable people to progress, and as long as one is successful in conveying that intent (which is more likely to happen where the characteristics I listed are employed) and convince others that these things would be better realized through acceptance of the criticism, then I believe the criticism has at least some chance of being accepted, if not a good chance.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Wade,

Here is an excellent example of my point from the mirror thread you started on MAD. Charity's reply:

Anytime someone personally attacks Joseph Smith or any of the other prophets I have to go away for a while before I can decide if I want to respond or if I can keep my temper enough to respond. For instance, in the PBS thread running right now, the report calls Joseph Smith a "shaman." I think that is disgusting.
Those who charge that plural marriage was lust-driven are particulalry offensive. It is the personal attack factor that is so disturbing.

I try to remember that mocking is a serious offense before God and the person doing the mocking is in big trouble. That way I can temper the anger with pity.

Someone who finds it "disgusting" that the report called Joseph Smith a "shaman" is just too sensitive to take part in any conversations with a critic. Yet she can't stay away from doing so.

She reveals a lot about her character with her last statement: she finds comfort in remembering that the critic is going to be in big, big, trouble with God. I see this type of thinking in EVs I live around quite a bit. The way they seem to revel in talking about the suffering of the damned in hell is - well, creepy is the first word that comes to my mind. Disturbing. Sad.

I looked carefully through all of your criticism here of Charity, and I was unable find even a hint of the characteristics of constructive and effective criticism that I had listed earlier.

Could such wide-spread omissions ironically be suggestive of your own "sensitivity", and perhaps raise questions about whether you should take part in discussions with believers?

Could such omissions ironically reveal a lot about your character?

Could your harsh judgementalism be rightfuly considered as "creepy", "disturbing", and "sad"?

I will let you answer those questions for yourself. For my part, I am just posing those questions as something for you to think about. I greatly admire your sharp intellect and insightfulness, and I am somewhat aware of the tremendous good that you have long done for your family and friends and the children you have educated over the years. I believe you have a lot to offer even to believers--certianly things far more efficacious than your scathing rebuke of Charity. For what it is worth, I think you are a much better person than how you came across above. And, I yearn for you to assist all of us, and Charity in particular (if not also Juliann), in your own way, to bettering our lives.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

Wade,

You have inadvertently demonstrated my entire point, as did Charity. Charity reacts to a nonbeliever calling Joseph Smith a shaman by labeling it "disgusting" and taking comfort in reminding herself that God will punish such mockers. You find nothing problematic in her behavior, and instead, fault the critic.

This is, in and of itself, an excellent demonstration of why conversations between true believers and critics are doomed in the manner I have already outlined. I am fully confident that you will never understand or appreciate my point, and that is also a demonstration of my point.

[_Analytics]

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.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well, the type of criticism I like best is criticism that is hateful and baseless. For example, if I were to express my sincere thoughts on some aspect of the Mormon religion and Pahoran were to respond to me, his post would primarily be personal criticisms of me with perhaps an indirect reference to the actual issue, with the focus on how he thinks I’m a liar, deceiver, traitor, and overall despicable human being. Reading Pahoran is like reading certain genres of pornography: it’s disgusting and over-the-top and makes you feel dirty, but it’s somehow entertaining and addicting.

The criticism that is the hardest to take is by people who actually know me and who I know, trust, and respect. It is hard to take because I actually value their opinions and know that what they are telling me is probably true.