Criticism

[_rcrocket]

Criticism is only in the eye of the beholder.

I am the target of mocking vulgarity on this board, but should I attribute that vulgarity to all anti- and disaffected Mormons? I think that not reasonable or fair.

To make sweeping generalizations about persons willing to defend the Church, and to base such generalizations on Pahoran or others, is just too easy, but it is wrong.

For faithful members to make sweeping generalizations of critics of the Church is also simply wrong.

My observation is that the more educated a poster (either in literature or history), the less willing he or she is willing to engage in vitriol and vehemence. But, there are exceptional posters in that regard, and there are occasional exceptions within a poster's experience. Even the most levelheaded sometimes flare up.

But, the internet attracts morons on both sides of the fence. I define a moron as one who lacks a foundational background to post on the subject matter. For the life of me, I could not understand why Dr. Peterson spent so much time on the Boards interacting with people who really lacked a clue -- both faithful members and critics. [I don't see Vogel spending much time with the morons on my side of the fence.]

I have the greatest respect for posters who never let us see them sweat. Who can cite chapter and verse. Who can be witty and turn a phrase occasionally. Who can land an occasional jab calculated to bring out the moronity of an opponent. And, yes, who are literate. But, that is just me.

In His Name,
rcrocket

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Criticism is only in the eye of the beholder.

I am the target of mocking vulgarity on this board, but should I attribute that vulgarity to all anti- and disaffected Mormons? I think that not reasonable or fair.

To make sweeping generalizations about persons willing to defend the Church, and to base such generalizations on Pahoran or others, is just too easy, but it is wrong.

For faithful members to make sweeping generalizations of critics of the Church is also simply wrong.

My observation is that the more educated a poster (either in literature or history), the less willing he or she is willing to engage in vitriol and vehemence. But, there are exceptional posters in that regard, and there are occasional exceptions within a poster's experience. Even the most levelheaded sometimes flare up.

But, the internet attracts morons on both sides of the fence. I define a moron as one who lacks a foundational background to post on the subject matter. For the life of me, I could not understand why Dr. Peterson spent so much time on the Boards interacting with people who really lacked a clue -- both faithful members and critics. [I don't see Vogel spending much time with the morons on my side of the fence.]

I have the greatest respect for posters who never let us see them sweat. Who can cite chapter and verse. Who can be witty and turn a phrase occasionally. Who can land an occasional jab calculated to bring out the moronity of an opponent. And, yes, who are literate. But, that is just me.

In His Name,
rcrocket

Bob, a very thoughtful post ... and one with which I agree.

[_Trinity]

[
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-

Charity appears to be an interesting case. She reminds me of literally hundreds of women I have met in the church. They are typically sheltered, function best with well defined and narrow life paths, are quite passionate, and sensitive. I think Charity is unique in that she is more educated than the women I just mentioned, so she can't stay away from the boards because it lights up the neurons in her brain; she literally craves the intellectual conversation but has difficulty emotionally handling the hits taken on her point of view. It is both logical and understanding that she defaults to the stance Beastie just mentioned. From what I have read of her, she has many traits that I can admire. But because of her level of education, I confess to cringing when she pops out of the intellectual portion of the discussion to go to her default position because I feel she is being intellectually dishonest in pushing her knowlege to its bursting seams and then dumping it all onto a shelf where she doesn't have to address or look at it. She does it to protect her testimony which houses her life, her life's ambitions, her life's motivations and experiences. That's a lot of investment.

I'll bet you $100 bucks that she is bored out of her mind in her Sunday meetings.

That's my .02 armchair psychology for the day, and I'm sure it is worth its value. ;)

There are a few apologists I have observed on the MAD board who clearly are there for a love of sparring. It has nothing to do with belief, but more of the desire to dance in the rings and pull off as many punches as they can, regardless of the subject matter at hand. They play by their own rules and are quite scrappy. Pahoran comes to mind. I am highly entertained when I read them.

[Gadianton]

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.

It appears that your mind is closed on the matter, so I don't see that there would be much value in discussing it with you further.

However, if your cemented position leads you to break off conversing with believers on boards such as this, then I, for one, will regret that (because I truly believe you do have a lot to offer), but I will also understand (given your current perception), and I will wish you all the best whereever your choices take you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_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.
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.

I note the irony of your turning this general discussion about criticism into an overly harsh personalized criticism of Pahoran. Very entertaining. ;-)

However, what you said helps draw an interesting distinction between what we may like (by way of entertainment), and what works and is valued.

I don't know about you, but I am inclinded to favor promoting the later rather than the former.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Analytics]

...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.

I note the irony of your turning this general discussion about criticism into an overly harsh personalized criticism of Pahoran. Very entertaining. ;-)

However, what you said helps draw an interesting distinction between what we may like (by way of entertainment), and what works and is valued.

I don't know about you, but I am inclinded to favor promoting the later rather than the former.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Just to be clear, I don’t know Pahoran in real life and I haven’t criticized Pahoran. What I have done is described his posting style, perhaps with a little hyperbole. The reason I used him as an example is because he usually makes gratuitous “criticisms” of the person he’s responding to.

The more subtle point I was making was that for a criticism to be effective and valued, it has to be from somebody who you know and trust. When the criticism comes from a bona fide trusted advisor, then in carries a lot more weight, will be a lot more effective, and will probably sting.

[_wenglund]

Criticism is only in the eye of the beholder.

I am the target of mocking vulgarity on this board, but should I attribute that vulgarity to all anti- and disaffected Mormons? I think that not reasonable or fair.

To make sweeping generalizations about persons willing to defend the Church, and to base such generalizations on Pahoran or others, is just too easy, but it is wrong.

For faithful members to make sweeping generalizations of critics of the Church is also simply wrong.

My observation is that the more educated a poster (either in literature or history), the less willing he or she is willing to engage in vitriol and vehemence. But, there are exceptional posters in that regard, and there are occasional exceptions within a poster's experience. Even the most levelheaded sometimes flare up.

But, the internet attracts morons on both sides of the fence. I define a moron as one who lacks a foundational background to post on the subject matter. For the life of me, I could not understand why Dr. Peterson spent so much time on the Boards interacting with people who really lacked a clue -- both faithful members and critics. [I don't see Vogel spending much time with the morons on my side of the fence.]

I have the greatest respect for posters who never let us see them sweat. Who can cite chapter and verse. Who can be witty and turn a phrase occasionally. Who can land an occasional jab calculated to bring out the moronity of an opponent. And, yes, who are literate. But, that is just me.

In His Name, rcrocket

In short, to you, valued and effective criticsim consists of avoiding stereotyping (judging either side by the actions of a few) rising above vitriol and vehemence, a sufficient foundational background on the subjectmatter, wit and literatacy, and jabs that expose the moronity of one's opponent.

With the exception of your last point, I tend to agree.

I hesitate to agree with your last point, not just because of the pejorative connotation of the term "moron", or even the fact that "moronic" is in the eye of the beholder (from my own experience, people tend not to view themselves as "moronic", and too often those who go about calling others "moronic", may be the last people that others would figure to be in a position to rightly judge, and may well be ironically projecting), but because I view it as potentially more destructive than constructive for all parties concerned. Jabs are, by nature, intended to hurt and tear down, and I think such actions, while at times necessary, diminish the one throwing the jab, the one being jabbed, and those gathered around the fight who relish seeing the jabs. Granted, playful banter and jabs among friends and respected colleges can enhance relationships at times. But, I am not sure that is what we are talking about here. To me, I think it wise to assess criticisms by the realized and potential outcomes. If it is calculated to genuinely better one or all parties, then great. If it mearly hurts and entertains, then I wonder if it is really worth it. Certainly, if I would not appreciate being on the receiving end of such jabs, then I ought not be intentionally throwing them or relishing in them.

But, as you say, that just may be me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

Incorrect. It is "workable"---meaning that it is up to *you* to do the word of supplying evidence.

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?

No, since in our prior discussions on this topic I presented you with a panoply of evidence which simply frustrated you, and caused you to try and re-write the dictionary.

Anyways, I think there are still two big holes in your argument, Wade, and I for one would be very interested in seeing them addressed.

1. You are still conflating "personal criticism" with "institutional criticism," and you have not yet explained why this is valid. I.e., why do you and other hardcore TBMs consider criticism of Joseph Smith or the Church to be "personal"? Why are you incapable of separating yourself from the institution? Further, is this tacit admission on your part that virtually your entire identity is determined by the Church?

2. I doubt that you can provide a single example of TBMs or apologists who have taken your schematic to heart. You want to pin all of this on critics, but does this work both ways? Do the folks on your side lead by example?

[_wenglund]

The more subtle point I was making was that for a criticism to be effective and valued, it has to be from somebody who you know and trust. When the criticism comes from a bona fide trusted advisor, then in carries a lot more weight, will be a lot more effective, and will probably sting.

I agree in part.

However, I have, at times, learned and grown through constructive criticisms from relative strangers with whom I had yet to develop much in the way of trust, though I tend to be somewhat trusting of people from the outset.

Perhaps like you, I count the "sting" as a good thing--like a cattle prod to get my bull head to move in the right direction. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

Criticism is only in the eye of the beholder.

I am the target of mocking vulgarity on this board, but should I attribute that vulgarity to all anti- and disaffected Mormons? I think that not reasonable or fair.

To make sweeping generalizations about persons willing to defend the Church, and to base such generalizations on Pahoran or others, is just too easy, but it is wrong.

For faithful members to make sweeping generalizations of critics of the Church is also simply wrong.

My observation is that the more educated a poster (either in literature or history), the less willing he or she is willing to engage in vitriol and vehemence. But, there are exceptional posters in that regard, and there are occasional exceptions within a poster's experience. Even the most levelheaded sometimes flare up.

But, the internet attracts morons on both sides of the fence. I define a moron as one who lacks a foundational background to post on the subject matter. For the life of me, I could not understand why Dr. Peterson spent so much time on the Boards interacting with people who really lacked a clue -- both faithful members and critics. [I don't see Vogel spending much time with the morons on my side of the fence.]

I have the greatest respect for posters who never let us see them sweat. Who can cite chapter and verse. Who can be witty and turn a phrase occasionally. Who can land an occasional jab calculated to bring out the moronity of an opponent. And, yes, who are literate. But, that is just me.

In His Name,
rcrocket

Bob, a very thoughtful post ... and one with which I agree.

I agree. This might be your all-time greatest post, Bob!