Criticism

[_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.

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

Perhaps in your case I should have bolded the critical qualifying phrase: "as stated", so that you wouldn't have incorrectly assumed that I was incorrect. Had I done so, then you may have correctly understood my statement to mean that the criticism, as is, didn't work, precisely because, at the very least, it lacked the requisite evidence needed to work for you. My apologies.

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.

But, my comment didn't have in mind our prior discussion (however you may wish to characterize it in your own mind). It had only to do with the brief and unsubstantiated statement you made on this thread.

Now, if you wish to add our prior discussion to the mix (at least the relevant portions), then I am fine with that. I will then take a look at the nature of your "evidence", and attempt to relate that in similar ways to your personal past, with the intent of testing whether such criticism is valued or effective or not. (I bolded this last statement so that you don't somehow forget what is the subject of this thread.)

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?

Again, as per this thread, and the "argument" of this thread, I am not conflating "personal criticism" with "institutional criticism." Rather, I have been suggesting that there are general characteristics of valued and effectual criticism that apply in either case, and as such, one may understand what may work in terms of the one case (i,e, "institutional criticism"), by understanding what works in the other case (i.e. "personal criticism"). (I bolded this last statement so that you wouldn't mis it twice and go on re-asserting this irrelevant straw man). Did you get it that time?

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?

As a TBM and former apologist, myself, I stand as a single example that negates your doubt. And, I have gone one step further, and openned a thread at MA&D regarding this matter, and there have already been statements made by TBM's and apologist that echo, if not directly confirm, various points of my so-called schematic. Accounts from both TBM's and critics are beginning to amass regarding instances of where people from both sides have lead by example.

Clearly, nothing I have said on this thread could reasonably be interpreted to suggest that I am pinning this all on the critics. In fact, I have made explicit statements to the contrary here (do I need to go back and bold them as well for your benefit?). But, the thread I started at MA&D, and some of my comments there, should soon put the your concern entirely to rest (assuming that is possible).

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.

Perhaps in your case I should have bolded the critical qualifying phrase: "as stated", so that you wouldn't have incorrectly assumed that I was incorrect. Had I done so, then you may have correctly understood my statement to mean that the criticism, as is, didn't work, precisely because, at the very least, it lacked the requisite evidence needed to work for you. My apologies.

Lol... Wade, come on now. It is very silly indeed to think that mere one-sentence phrases constitute legitimate and serious criticism. I seriously doubt that *any* one-liner critiques are going to be "workable" as per your schematics. More over, I doubt any criticism "lacking the requisite evidence" is going to work very well either!

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.

But, my comment didn't have in mind our prior discussion (however you may wish to characterize it in your own mind). It had only to do with the brief and unsubstantiated statement you made on this thread.

Very well. Now that we have that cleared up, we can proceed.

Now, if you wish to add our prior discussion to the mix (at least the relevant portions), then I am fine with that.

Excellent.

I will then take a look at the nature of your "evidence", and attempt to relate that in similar ways to your personal past, with the intent of testing whether such criticism is valued or effective or not. (I bolded this last statement so that you don't somehow forget what is the subject of this thread.)

Good. Bring it on.

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?

Again, as per this thread, and the "argument" of this thread, I am not conflating "personal criticism" with "institutional criticism." Rather, I have been suggesting that there are general characteristics of valued and effectual criticism that apply in either case, and as such, one may understand what may work in terms of the one case (i,e, "institutional criticism"), by understanding what works in the other case (i.e. "personal criticism"). (I bolded this last statement so that you wouldn't mis it twice and go on re-asserting this irrelevant straw man). Did you get it that time?

Yes, I get it: you are conflating the two. Your claim that there are "general characteristics of valued and effectual criticism" assumes that critiques of institutions and persons can be the same (more or less). What ground do you think you will lose by admitting this? I don't know why you think I am crafting a straw man, Wade. Do you not want people to say 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?

As a TBM and former apologist, myself, I stand as a single example that negates your doubt.

Where, Wade? Where have you ever acknowledged and accepted a single criticism of the Church?

And, I have gone one step further, and openned a thread at MA&D regarding this matter, and there have already been statements made by TBM's and apologist that echo, if not directly confirm, various points of my so-called schematic. Accounts from both TBM's and critics are beginning to amass regarding instances of where people from both sides have lead by example.

No, I am asking for a very specific kind of example: When has a hardcored TBM such as yourself ever acknowledged and accepted a single criticism of the Church?

Clearly, nothing I have said on this thread could reasonably be interpreted to suggest that I am pinning this all on the critics. In fact, I have made explicit statements to the contrary here (do I need to go back and bold them as well for your benefit?).

No, but you do need to provide specific examples. You often seem hesitant to do that, which always makes me think you are trying to pull a fast one.... ; )

But, the thread I started at MA&D, and some of my comments there, should soon put the your concern entirely to rest (assuming that is possible).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I haven't seen any comments over there that supply the sort of evidence I am asking for.

[_wenglund]

Lol... Wade, come on now. It is very silly indeed to think that mere one-sentence phrases constitute legitimate and serious criticism. I seriously doubt that *any* one-liner critiques are going to be "workable" as per your schematics. More over, I doubt any criticism "lacking the requisite evidence" is going to work very well either!

Yet, a "mere one-sentence phrase" is all you offered by way of an example of criticism on this thread. Silly, indeed!

I will then take a look at the nature of your "evidence", and attempt to relate that in similar ways to your personal past, with the intent of testing whether such criticism is valued or effective or not. (I bolded this last statement so that you don't somehow forget what is the subject of this thread.)

Good. Bring it on.

Umm...first things first. You need to first bring on your evidence. If you wish to research our past discussions and post the relevant items here, I am fine with that.

Please keep in mind, though, that the purpose in doing this on this thread, is not to actually argue the points of whether you or the Church have lied about your respective pasts, but by way of providing specific examples to illustrate whether these kinds of criticisms are valued and effective or not.

Again, as per this thread, and the "argument" of this thread, I am not conflating "personal criticism" with "institutional criticism." Rather, I have been suggesting that there are general characteristics of valued and effectual criticism that apply in either case, and as such, one may understand what may work in terms of the one case (i,e, "institutional criticism"), by understanding what works in the other case (i.e. "personal criticism"). (I bolded this last statement so that you wouldn't mis it twice and go on re-asserting this irrelevant straw man). Did you get it that time?

Yes, I get it: you are conflating the two. Your claim that there are "general characteristics of valued and effectual criticism" assumes that critiques of institutions and persons can be the same (more or less). What ground do you think you will lose by admitting this? I don't know why you think I am crafting a straw man, Wade. Do you not want people to say that "virtually your entire identity is determined by the Church"?

I have no interest in pursuing this "yes it is....no it isn't...yes it is" discussion, and so I will just leave it at that.

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?

As a TBM and former apologist, myself, I stand as a single example that negates your doubt.

Where, Wade? Where have you ever acknowledged and accepted a single criticism of the Church?

And, I have gone one step further, and openned a thread at MA&D regarding this matter, and there have already been statements made by TBM's and apologist that echo, if not directly confirm, various points of my so-called schematic. Accounts from both TBM's and critics are beginning to amass regarding instances of where people from both sides have lead by example.

No, I am asking for a very specific kind of example: When has a hardcored TBM such as yourself ever acknowledged and accepted a single criticism of the Church?

Clearly, nothing I have said on this thread could reasonably be interpreted to suggest that I am pinning this all on the critics. In fact, I have made explicit statements to the contrary here (do I need to go back and bold them as well for your benefit?).

No, but you do need to provide specific examples. You often seem hesitant to do that, which always makes me think you are trying to pull a fast one.... ; )

But, the thread I started at MA&D, and some of my comments there, should soon put the your concern entirely to rest (assuming that is possible).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I haven't seen any comments over there that supply the sort of evidence I am asking for.

I also see no value in pursuing a discussion where clear evidence to me is no evidence to you, and I will just leave it at that as well.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Wade, maybe we can take a little shortcut ... is there any conceivable criticism of the church that would be acceptable to you, and which you wouldn't take personally? Please be specific. Thanks.

[_wenglund]

Wade, maybe we can take a little shortcut ... is there any conceivable criticism of the church that would be acceptable to you, and which you wouldn't take personally? Please be specific. Thanks.

For the umpteenth time, this isn't intended to be a discussion about whether I or anyone else would take, or have taken, criticisms about the Church personally or not. I freely admit that I have and would--and I think rightly so.

Rather, it is about whether certain kinds of criticism are valued and efficacious, regardless of whether one is a believer or a critic.

In terms of valued and effective criticism of the Church, as long as the criticism includes the characteristic I have listed previously, I would be inclined to accept it.

There are numerous specific examples that I can point to. Pick any one of the talks from the General Conference issues of the Ensign for ample examples, if not also the rebukes and admonitions from the Lord and his chosen leaders throughout the LDS canon of scripture regarding repentance and bettering ourselves as a people and taking upon us the image and nature of Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

Wade, maybe we can take a little shortcut ... is there any conceivable criticism of the church that would be acceptable to you, and which you wouldn't take personally? Please be specific. Thanks.

Lucretia, dahling, it just must be "edifying" criticism.

[_Mister Scratch]

Wade, maybe we can take a little shortcut ... is there any conceivable criticism of the church that would be acceptable to you, and which you wouldn't take personally? Please be specific. Thanks.

For the umpteenth time, this isn't intended to be a discussion about whether I or anyone else would take, or have taken, criticisms about the Church personally or not. I freely admit that I have and would--and I think rightly so.

Rather, it is about whether certain kinds of criticism are valued and efficacious, regardless of whether one is a believer or a critic.

In terms of valued and effective criticism of the Church, as long as the criticism includes the characteristic I have listed previously, I would be inclined to accept it.

There are numerous specific examples that I can point to. Pick any one of the talks from the General Conference issues of the Ensign for ample examples, if not also the rebukes and admonitions from the Lord and his chosen leaders throughout the LDS canon of scripture regarding repentance and bettering ourselves as a people and taking upon us the image and nature of Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What a load of tripe, Wade! As if comments from the GAs at General Conference constitute real criticism of the Church! Are you kidding with this baloney? Let's face facts here: the sole purpose of this thread is for you to try---yet again---to shut up the critics you don't like.

You say that you "rightly" take criticism of the Church personally (thus admitting at last, what I'd suspected all along, which is that you did indeed conflate), and yet you refuse to say why!?! You are trying to set up this scenario in which "everybody plays fair," but your scenario is not equal. Most critics do not mind (nor take personally) criticism of the Church. And yet so many TBMs such as you get completely bent out of shape. Why is that, I wonder?

[_Mister Scratch]

Lol... Wade, come on now. It is very silly indeed to think that mere one-sentence phrases constitute legitimate and serious criticism. I seriously doubt that *any* one-liner critiques are going to be "workable" as per your schematics. More over, I doubt any criticism "lacking the requisite evidence" is going to work very well either!

Yet, a "mere one-sentence phrase" is all you offered by way of an example of criticism on this thread. Silly, indeed!

I will then take a look at the nature of your "evidence", and attempt to relate that in similar ways to your personal past, with the intent of testing whether such criticism is valued or effective or not. (I bolded this last statement so that you don't somehow forget what is the subject of this thread.)

Good. Bring it on.

Umm...first things first. You need to first bring on your evidence. If you wish to research our past discussions and post the relevant items here, I am fine with that.

Please keep in mind, though, that the purpose in doing this on this thread, is not to actually argue the points of whether you or the Church have lied about your respective pasts, but by way of providing specific examples to illustrate whether these kinds of criticisms are valued and effective or not.

Yeah, funny. This means one of two things: you are too lazy to go and find the posts, or that you want me to go to the trouble of posting them so that you can dismiss them with a wave of your arm, "Nope, sorry, Mr. Scratch, but I don't find those criticisms valuable and effective!"

Again, as per this thread, and the "argument" of this thread, I am not conflating "personal criticism" with "institutional criticism." Rather, I have been suggesting that there are general characteristics of valued and effectual criticism that apply in either case, and as such, one may understand what may work in terms of the one case (i,e, "institutional criticism"), by understanding what works in the other case (i.e. "personal criticism"). (I bolded this last statement so that you wouldn't mis it twice and go on re-asserting this irrelevant straw man). Did you get it that time?

Yes, I get it: you are conflating the two. Your claim that there are "general characteristics of valued and effectual criticism" assumes that critiques of institutions and persons can be the same (more or less). What ground do you think you will lose by admitting this? I don't know why you think I am crafting a straw man, Wade. Do you not want people to say that "virtually your entire identity is determined by the Church"?

I have no interest in pursuing this "yes it is....no it isn't...yes it is" discussion, and so I will just leave it at that.

See my post above, where I point out the place where you finally admit that yes, in fact, you are conflating. You admitted it yourself, and so I will just leave it at that. ; )

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?

As a TBM and former apologist, myself, I stand as a single example that negates your doubt.

Where, Wade? Where have you ever acknowledged and accepted a single criticism of the Church?

I think this last question deserves an answer!

And, I have gone one step further, and openned a thread at MA&D regarding this matter, and there have already been statements made by TBM's and apologist that echo, if not directly confirm, various points of my so-called schematic. Accounts from both TBM's and critics are beginning to amass regarding instances of where people from both sides have lead by example.

No, I am asking for a very specific kind of example: When has a hardcored TBM such as yourself ever acknowledged and accepted a single criticism of the Church?

Clearly, nothing I have said on this thread could reasonably be interpreted to suggest that I am pinning this all on the critics. In fact, I have made explicit statements to the contrary here (do I need to go back and bold them as well for your benefit?).

No, but you do need to provide specific examples. You often seem hesitant to do that, which always makes me think you are trying to pull a fast one.... ; )

But, the thread I started at MA&D, and some of my comments there, should soon put the your concern entirely to rest (assuming that is possible).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I haven't seen any comments over there that supply the sort of evidence I am asking for.

I also see no value in pursuing a discussion where clear evidence to me is no evidence to you, and I will just leave it at that as well.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-[/quote][/quote]

Post the quotes then, Wade. Quit trying to evade and just supply the concrete, specific evidence.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Wade, maybe we can take a little shortcut ... is there any conceivable criticism of the church that would be acceptable to you, and which you wouldn't take personally? Please be specific. Thanks.

For the umpteenth time, this isn't intended to be a discussion about whether I or anyone else would take, or have taken, criticisms about the Church personally or not. I freely admit that I have and would--and I think rightly so.

Rather, it is about whether certain kinds of criticism are valued and efficacious, regardless of whether one is a believer or a critic.

In terms of valued and effective criticism of the Church, as long as the criticism includes the characteristic I have listed previously, I would be inclined to accept it.

There are numerous specific examples that I can point to. Pick any one of the talks from the General Conference issues of the Ensign for ample examples, if not also the rebukes and admonitions from the Lord and his chosen leaders throughout the LDS canon of scripture regarding repentance and bettering ourselves as a people and taking upon us the image and nature of Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Isn't it a tad unrealistic to ask critics to restrict themselves to quoting the Ensign to you?

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Wade, maybe we can take a little shortcut ... is there any conceivable criticism of the church that would be acceptable to you, and which you wouldn't take personally? Please be specific. Thanks.

For the umpteenth time, this isn't intended to be a discussion about whether I or anyone else would take, or have taken, criticisms about the Church personally or not. I freely admit that I have and would--and I think rightly so.

Rather, it is about whether certain kinds of criticism are valued and efficacious, regardless of whether one is a believer or a critic.

In terms of valued and effective criticism of the Church, as long as the criticism includes the characteristic I have listed previously, I would be inclined to accept it.

There are numerous specific examples that I can point to. Pick any one of the talks from the General Conference issues of the Ensign for ample examples, if not also the rebukes and admonitions from the Lord and his chosen leaders throughout the LDS canon of scripture regarding repentance and bettering ourselves as a people and taking upon us the image and nature of Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What a load of tripe, Wade! As if comments from the GAs at General Conference constitute real criticism of the Church! Are you kidding with this baloney? Let's face facts here: the sole purpose of this thread is for you to try---yet again---to shut up the critics you don't like.

You say that you "rightly" take criticism of the Church personally (thus admitting at last, what I'd suspected all along, which is that you did indeed conflate), and yet you refuse to say why!?! You are trying to set up this scenario in which "everybody plays fair," but your scenario is not equal. Most critics do not mind (nor take personally) criticism of the Church. And yet so many TBMs such as you get completely bent out of shape. Why is that, I wonder?

Well, Wade is nothing if he isn't transparent.

Wade, people are going to keep on saying the church isn't true. Can't CBT help you out with the "taking offense" thing, or are you just going to keep on taking offense (to nobody's detriment but your own)?