Criticism

[_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-

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?

I appreciate you posting this, if for no other reason than it is an excellent example of the kind of criticism that is devoid of value and efficacy--which is why it will go un-responded to, as well as the rest of what you may wish to say on this thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_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-

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

Yes, it would be...which is why I didn't, nor would I, suggest that they should...and no reasonable person would think that I had.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

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)?

I think you are confusing "taking it personal" with "taking offense". To me, they mean different things. I view "take it personal" to mean "it applies to me". How I may react to what is view as personal, is a different matter. And, there are a broad ranger of ways that I may react depending upon what has been applied to me--from appreciative to offended, from joyful to sorrowful, etc..

As it is, when people say that the Church isn't true, that is a statement of their belief (or disbelief), which happens to be different from my own. And contrary to your wild conjecture, I don't see it as offensive because it is meaningless in light of my own beliefs. So, your point about CBT in this instance, doesn't apply.

But, again, the issue of this thread is not whether I take things personally that are said about the Church, but whether certain criticisms proffered from either side are valued and efficacious or not. People simply declaring, by way of criticism, a belief that is different from my own (such as were they to say that my Church isn't true), would not qualify as valued or efficacious criticism, just as were I to respond in-kind (like saying that their belief is not true about the Church).

Are you beginning to get a sense now for what the topic of this thread is really about?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

Are you beginning to get a sense now for what the topic of this thread is really about?

Wade - you're amazing. Really. You can sit there and construct a theory that demands criticism be "edifying", which obviously means, to a true believer, maintaining faith in the LDS church at all costs, and then pretend you are actually presenting a theory that isn't full of BS?

Of course critics can criticize - as long as it is edifying, and doesn't threaten faith. Just tell us we need to shorten our sacrament meetings. Tell us we need to actually follow the prophet instead of just pretending to. Tell us anything, other than historical facts that threaten belief. Who do you think you are fooling, other than, of course, first and foremost, yourself? Do you ever wonder, at any time, in a secret part of your mind, why your theories always seem to entail critics remaining silent about the most important issues regarding LDS faith?

[_wenglund]

Are you beginning to get a sense now for what the topic of this thread is really about?

Wade - you're amazing. Really. You can sit there and construct a theory that demands criticism be "edifying", which obviously means, to a true believer, maintaining faith in the LDS church at all costs, and then pretend you are actually presenting a theory that isn't full of BS?

Of course critics can criticize - as long as it is edifying, and doesn't threaten faith. Just tell us we need to shorten our sacrament meetings. Tell us we need to actually follow the prophet instead of just pretending to. Tell us anything, other than historical facts that threaten belief. Who do you think you are fooling, other than, of course, first and foremost, yourself? Do you ever wonder, at any time, in a secret part of your mind, why your theories always seem to entail critics remaining silent about the most important issues regarding LDS faith?

How you continue to get "at all cost" (and other suggestions of a position so extreme I don't recognize it myself) from what I have said, particularly when I have repeatedly corrected you (as the ultimate authority of what I say and believe), is puzzling to me. However, you seem intent on arguing against that straw man rather than engaging what I actually said. So, I see no value in me remaining in dialogue with you, but I will leave you to go the rounds with your straw man.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-