Criticism

[Gadianton]

I get the impression from various critics that LDS apologist can't handle much if any criticism against the Church. The critics point to various things (numerous bannings from websites like FAIR/MA&D, the lack of participation here by certain apologists, etc.) as evidence in support of this alleged aversion to criticism.

Previously, I have pointed out that there have long been, and still are, critics who are permitted to post on FAIR/MA&D, which then would suggest to the reasonably minded that there is at least some tolerance of criticism on the part of apologists.

I have also pointed out that LDS apologist have view the critics as not being able to handle much if any counter-criticism and/or personal criticism. They have their evidence to support this view, and those who may think otherwise, have their evidence as well.

Unfortunately, discussions on such matters have tended to devolve into counterproductive finger-pointing and airy self-congratulation on both sides.

I have given this matter considerable thought over the last week or so, and I hae come up with an hypothesis that I wish to test. I submit that it isn't that either party has a complete aversion to criticism, but rather their aversion is understandably towards certain types of criticism. Each party's aversion is to destructive criticism, not constructive criticism. By this I mean that is makes little sense for anyone to subject themselves to criticism which they believe will limit, if not counter, their ability to achieve healthy needs and desires.

Granted, many of those doing the criticizing on both sides may charitably view the criticisms they give as having a constructive intent of sorts. But, for a variety of reasons, the party on the receiving end of the criticisms don't typically feel the love or see the constructiveness of the criticisms.

I believe there may be a valid reason for this, which I think deserves further exploration.

So, rather than finger-pointing and self-aggrandizing about whether the other party can handle criticism or not, I think it may be more useful for each of us self-evaluate how we personally criticize, and what our criticism may be about, and test this against the Golden Rule (how we personally may wish to be criticized, ourselves, and what we may wish to be criticized about), to see if there may be room for improvement.

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-

[_moksha]

I have an aversion to mean-spirited personal criticism. I also do not like to see others slandered as well. Criticism that helps refine our understanding is welcomed, as is criticism that keeps us honest.

[_Mister Scratch]

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-

Excellent post, Wade. (And I have missed your presence on the board very much, by the way.) The type of criticism I value most is criticism which is aimed at identifying problems, errors, and flaws within the doctrine, history, practices, or culture of the LDS Church.

[_wenglund]

I have an aversion to mean-spirited personal criticism. I also do not like to see others slandered as well. Criticism that helps refine our understanding is welcomed, as is criticism that keeps us honest.

I have a good idea of what mean-sprited and slanderous criticism may look like, but I wonder if you could give an example or two of the welcomed criticisms you have received that refined your understanding and helped keep you honest.

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-

Excellent post, Wade. (And I have missed your presence on the board very much, by the way.) The type of criticism I value most is criticism which is aimed at identifying problems, errors, and flaws within the doctrine, history, practices, or culture of the LDS Church.

I appreciate the compliment.

However, it appears that I wasn't clear enough in what I was specifically looking for in my last paragraph (I had mistakenly supposed that the previous paragraph about the Golden Rule would have sufficed). My request is for the types of criticism you may value regarding yourself, personally, and not regarding other entities such as the Church. (I think we all are already quite aware of how much you value criticism of the Church--at least I know that I am quite aware of that).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

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-

Excellent post, Wade. (And I have missed your presence on the board very much, by the way.) The type of criticism I value most is criticism which is aimed at identifying problems, errors, and flaws within the doctrine, history, practices, or culture of the LDS Church.

I appreciate the compliment.

However, it appears that I wasn't clear enough in what I was specifically looking for in my last paragraph (I had mistakenly supposed that the previous paragraph about the Golden Rule would have sufficed). My request is for the types of criticism you may value regarding yourself, personally, and not regarding other entities such as the Church. (I think we all are already quite aware of how much you value criticism of the Church--at least I know that I am quite aware of that).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Huh. Well, in that case, I am going to have to agree with you that you were not clear enough. I am not sure why you think any "personal" criticism would be a good idea either here, or on boards such as the fittingly named MADboard.... These things are usually called "personal attacks." Further, I would say that most people probably do not like being "personally criticized."

That is why it is best, in my opinion, to focus the constructive criticism on "entities," as you put it, or figureheads for those entities, rather than on individual posters. Or the "constructive criticism" may be directed towards arguments and ideas. When you get into dealing with individual people, the effect often seems a bit too similar to an ad hominem attack.

[_Seven]

I have an aversion to mean-spirited personal criticism. I also do not like to see others slandered as well. Criticism that helps refine our understanding is welcomed, as is criticism that keeps us honest.

I agree.
I also do not like to see apologists/TBMs accuse critics of using disturbing behavior of Joseph, or church hisotry as an excuse or justification for losing their testimony. It's the reason they lost their testimony. This accusation is character slander and offensive. I have seen Why Me and Wade post comments like this here, and it's the general attitude of TBMs at MAD toward critics.

[_wenglund]

I would say that most people probably do not like being "personally criticized."

That is why it is best, in my opinion, to focus the constructive criticism on "entities," as you put it, or figureheads for those entities, rather than on individual posters. Or the "constructive criticism" may be directed towards arguments and ideas. When you get into dealing with individual people, the effect often seems a bit too similar to an ad hominem attack.

I don't think you are getting my point (perhaps I am still not being clear enough for your sake). I am not suggesting that we necessarily get into personal criticisms here. I am just asking what kinds of personal criticisms (which would include, among other things, criticism of personal ideas, beliefs, and arguments) of you that you may value, and to use that as a gauge for what types of criticism may be valued by others.

If, as you suggest, people do not like being personally criticized, chances are they don't like criticism of entities they may be associated with (particularly significant associations), and thus given the Golden Rule, it may behove those who feel this way, not to criticize at all.

I, personally, don't happen to think that way. There have been criticisms of me, personally, that I have and do value, and thus, according to the Golden Rule, it may behove me to restrict my criticism of others to those kinds of criticism that I value.

Does that make sense to you now?

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

[_wenglund]

I have an aversion to mean-spirited personal criticism. I also do not like to see others slandered as well. Criticism that helps refine our understanding is welcomed, as is criticism that keeps us honest.

I agree.
I also do not like to see apologists/TBMs accuse critics of using disturbing behavior of Joseph, or church hisotry as an excuse or justification for losing their testimony. It's the reason they lost their testimony. This accusation is character slander and offensive. I have seen Why Me and Wade post comments like this here, and it's the general attitude of TBMs at MAD toward critics.

Can you understand how, in similar ways, the criticism of Joseph Smith and Church history by former members may be viewed as "character slander and offensive" by those who retain their testimony?

Are there types of criticism of critics that you do value?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Sethbag]

Wade, the problem is that the criticism of the LDS church and of Joseph Smith that is most straight to the point, is that the LDS church isn't true and that Joseph Smith was a guy who amassed a lot of power and influence with his body of followers, and took advantage of that with his sexual practices, and that he literally made up things like the Book of Abraham.

We're not all on this and other boards to say that the Relief Socity program is a little misguided, or to complain about Home Teaching. It's Joseph Smith and the veracity of the LDS church and the LDS scriptures.

I agree that personal attacks against other posters is harmful and not conducive to meaningful conversation. But criticism of the truth claims of the church, of the LDS scriptures, and of Joseph Smith's character and claims of prophethood is part and parcel, and if someone gest offended by such criticism, then the best suggestion would be for them to stick to "fellowship" boards.