Danged If We Do, Danged If We Don't (Revisited)

[MorningStar]

I think I started a thread on this years ago.  Critics will never be satisfied.  For instance:

 

"The church should apologize for _____."

 

If the church were to apologize, the response would be, "Ah ha!!!  The church admitted to wrongdoing!  The church isn't true!"

 

"The church should do more charitable work."

 

But when the church does charitable work?  "That's just a PR move!"  I read criticisms years ago that it was wrong of the church to have members wear Mormon Helping Hands shirts because that's all about being seen of men.  Personally, if I went through a disaster and I needed help, I would appreciate having a way to identify who my helpers are, especially with a group of strangers.  There are people out there who use such times to take advantage of others, so anyone could blend in, walk into someone's house, and steal their belongings.  Of course I would have no objections to being helped by a neighbor I'm familiar with. 

 

"The church should have more diversity in its videos."

 

I'm sure the reaction would be that the church only did so with less than pure intentions.

 

Other examples? 

[KevinG]

Critics are like soldiers who hide in the woods, then run out after the battle is over to shoot the wounded.

[mfbukowski]

Critics are like soldiers who hide in the woods, then run out after the battle is over to shoot the wounded.

And then say they were helping them by helping them commit suicide as an act of Christian mercy.

[Robert F. Smith]

I think I started a thread on this years ago.  Critics will never be satisfied.  For instance:

 

"The church should apologize for _____."

 

If the church were to apologize, the response would be, "Ah ha!!!  The church admitted to wrongdoing!  The church isn't true!"

 

"The church should do more charitable work."

 

But when the church does charitable work?  "That's just a PR move!"  I read criticisms years ago that it was wrong of the church to have members wear Mormon Helping Hands shirts because that's all about being seen of men.  Personally, if I went through a disaster and I needed help, I would appreciate having a way to identify who my helpers are, especially with a group of strangers.  There are people out there who use such times to take advantage of others, so anyone could blend in, walk into someone's house, and steal their belongings.  Of course I would have no objections to being helped by a neighbor I'm familiar with. 

 

"The church should have more diversity in its videos."

 

I'm sure the reaction would be that the church only did so with less than pure intentions.

 

Other examples? 

You hit the nail on the head.

 

The honest in heart can tell the difference which the hypocrites will not see.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think I started a thread on this years ago. Critics will never be satisfied. For instance:

"The church should apologize for _____."

If the church were to apologize, the response would be, "Ah ha!!! The church admitted to wrongdoing! The church isn't true!"

"The church should do more charitable work."

But when the church does charitable work? "That's just a PR move!" I read criticisms years ago that it was wrong of the church to have members wear Mormon Helping Hands shirts because that's all about being seen of men. Personally, if I went through a disaster and I needed help, I would appreciate having a way to identify who my helpers are, especially with a group of strangers. There are people out there who use such times to take advantage of others, so anyone could blend in, walk into someone's house, and steal their belongings. Of course I would have no objections to being helped by a neighbor I'm familiar with.

"The church should have more diversity in its videos."

I'm sure the reaction would be that the church only did so with less than pure intentions.

Other examples?

Oh my! The examples are legion; virtually never-ending.

The Church gets criticized for not opening its financials to public view. Yet if it did so, there would be no end to the carping, second-guessing and ignorant fault-finding about Church expenditure of funds. Not to mention frivolous or vexatious lawsuits by greedy people trying to raid the coffers of the church of deep pockets of latter-day saints.

Edited August 25, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[strappinglad]

I've seen similar responses from critics of all stripes. Republican vs Democrats, Baseball fans vs Football fans, almost everyone vs Soccer , Blondes vs Brunettes. None of them want to give the other side a break. Yabut is their favorite retort.

[Five Solas]

Are there any criticisms of the LDS Church you do think have merit, MorningStar?  If so, what might those be?  Or do you think the LDS Church is above reproach and any/all critics are ignorant, evil or both? 

 

I'd like to know.  Others might too. 

 

--Erik

[The Nehor]

Are there any criticisms of the LDS Church you do think have merit, MorningStar?  If so, what might those be?  Or do you think the LDS Church is above reproach and any/all critics are ignorant, evil or both? 

 

I'd like to know.  Others might too. 

 

--Erik

 

I think they are too kind to their critics sometimes by not calling them out. Does that count as a fault?

[saemo]

I think I started a thread on this years ago. Critics will never be satisfied. For instance:

"The church should apologize for _____."

If the church were to apologize, the response would be, "Ah ha!!! The church admitted to wrongdoing! The church isn't true!"

"The church should do more charitable work."

But when the church does charitable work? "That's just a PR move!" I read criticisms years ago that it was wrong of the church to have members wear Mormon Helping Hands shirts because that's all about being seen of men. Personally, if I went through a disaster and I needed help, I would appreciate having a way to identify who my helpers are, especially with a group of strangers. There are people out there who use such times to take advantage of others, so anyone could blend in, walk into someone's house, and steal their belongings. Of course I would have no objections to being helped by a neighbor I'm familiar with.

"The church should have more diversity in its videos."

I'm sure the reaction would be that the church only did so with less than pure intentions.

Other examples?

I'd say, the difference between a "critic"and a believing member, is one trusts without question and the other distrusts and questions everything (usually once trusting without question). Hot or cold. Personally, I prefer a balanced approach. Have questions, sure, but have some trust too. I don't know that personally, I can get there with the LDS church. Individual members, sure, on a case by case basis.

I should add, I first try to give the benefit of the doubt to individuals.

Edited August 25, 2015 by saemo

[The Nehor]

The other thing I don't understand is why critics are so annoyed that they are ignored. What kind of organization takes advice from its opponents who think its guiding goals and principles are misguided or outright wrong and expects to survive? This is like Hitler whining that Churchhill won't take his calls where he wants to recommend troop and fleet deployment strategies?

[saemo]

The other thing I don't understand is why critics are so annoyed that they are ignored. What kind of organization takes advice from its opponents who think its guiding goals and principles are misguided or outright wrong and expects to survive? This is like Hitler whining that Churchhill won't take his calls where he wants to recommend troop and fleet deployment strategies?

Oh no, did Godwin just appear?

Some consider me a critic. I highly prefer to go unnoticed by the Church. More better.

[sdc999]

The other thing I don't understand is why critics are so annoyed that they are ignored. What kind of organization takes advice from its opponents who think its guiding goals and principles are misguided or outright wrong and expects to survive? This is like Hitler whining that Churchhill won't take his calls where he wants to recommend troop and fleet deployment strategies?

You may lack understanding that all critics are not 'opponents'.  There are critics within the church itself.  Constructive criticism is a good thing.  The church has adapted in many areas and you may think it has only done so because God has willed it.  I would say that constructive criticism has been heard at some higher levels in order for some things to change as evidenced in the recent addition of women to several Councils.  

 

As far as open financial records, I think ANY organization that claims tax exempt status should have open books.  And yes, if the church opened them up, it would take  a beating for awhile.  Anyone who keeps something secret for so long gives the appearance they are hiding something.  

[Scott Lloyd]

Some consider me a critic. I highly prefer to go unnoticed by the Church. More better.

More like you want to get your digs in without having to take personal responsibility for them by disclosing your identity.

[Scott Lloyd]

As far as open financial records, I think ANY organization that claims tax exempt status should have open books.  And yes, if the church opened them up, it would take  a beating for awhile.  Anyone who keeps something secret for so long gives the appearance they are hiding something.  

QED: "danged if we do and danged if we don't."

Edited August 25, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

I think I started a thread on this years ago.  Critics will never be satisfied.  For instance:

 

"The church should apologize for _____."

 

If the church were to apologize, the response would be, "Ah ha!!!  The church admitted to wrongdoing!  The church isn't true!"

 

"The church should do more charitable work."

 

But when the church does charitable work?  "That's just a PR move!"  I read criticisms years ago that it was wrong of the church to have members wear Mormon Helping Hands shirts because that's all about being seen of men.  Personally, if I went through a disaster and I needed help, I would appreciate having a way to identify who my helpers are, especially with a group of strangers.  There are people out there who use such times to take advantage of others, so anyone could blend in, walk into someone's house, and steal their belongings.  Of course I would have no objections to being helped by a neighbor I'm familiar with. 

 

"The church should have more diversity in its videos."

 

I'm sure the reaction would be that the church only did so with less than pure intentions.

 

Other examples? 

 

I for one will not be satisfied until Mormonism is nothing but a vague memory in our cultural history, up there with platform sneakers and sparkling yogurt.

 

Seriously, though, I think you're right that some people just like to find things to criticize, and if something is ever resolved, they'll move on to the next target. That's just human nature. What I find interesting is that criticism or commentary is taken very differently when it's from a church member. For example, when an active high priest muses about diversity in church videos, it's taken very differently than when a known critic says it.

[Scott Lloyd]

I for one will not be satisfied until Mormonism is nothing but a vague memory in our cultural history, up there with platform sneakers and sparkling yogurt.

 

Seriously, though, I think you're right that some people just like to find things to criticize, and if something is ever resolved, they'll move on to the next target. That's just human nature. What I find interesting is that criticism or commentary is taken very differently when it's from a church member. For example, when an active high priest muses about diversity in church videos, it's taken very differently than when a known critic says it.

Maybe that's because when the "known critic says it," "diversity" is often code for acceptance of that which God has declared sinful.

[jkwilliams]

Getting back to the OP:

Top Ten Things the Church Should Apologize for
 
10. "The Family, and Other Living Things"

9. High council speakers, collectively and individually

8. Glenn Beck

7. Nu Skin, Neways, Melaleuca, Tahitian Noni, ...

6. Testimony Gloves

5. Stephenie Meyer

4. Tom Trails

3. Early morning seminary

2. The hideous San Diego Temple

1. This

[jkwilliams]

Maybe that's because when the "known critic says it," "diversity" is often code for acceptance of that which God has declared sinful.

 

Really? It's sinful to have non-white actors in church videos? 

[Scott Lloyd]

Really? It's sinful to have non-white actors in church videos? 

?????

[jkwilliams]

?????

 

That was what the "diversity in church videos" thing was about: non-white actors. In context (while skipping Gospel Doctrine), it was just a church member musing on how our diverse ward membership might respond to the white cast of a church video. Bring it up here, however, and all bets are off.

[Avatar4321]

Getting back to the OP:

Top Ten Things the Church Should Apologize for

 

10. "The Family, and Other Living Things"

9. High council speakers, collectively and individually

8. Glenn Beck

7. Nu Skin, Neways, Melaleuca, Tahitian Noni, ...

6. Testimony Gloves

5. Stephenie Meyer

4. Tom Trails

3. Early morning seminary

2. The hideous San Diego Temple

1. This

Also known as ten things you guys should thank the Church for:)

[jkwilliams]

Also known as ten things you guys should thank the Church for:)

 

Well, we have to find something to criticize, or we're just not happy.

[Buckeye]

I think I started a thread on this years ago.  Critics will never be satisfied.  For instance:

 

"The church should apologize for _____."

 

If the church were to apologize, the response would be, "Ah ha!!!  The church admitted to wrongdoing!  The church isn't true!"

 

"The church should do more charitable work."

 

But when the church does charitable work?  "That's just a PR move!"  I read criticisms years ago that it was wrong of the church to have members wear Mormon Helping Hands shirts because that's all about being seen of men.  Personally, if I went through a disaster and I needed help, I would appreciate having a way to identify who my helpers are, especially with a group of strangers.  There are people out there who use such times to take advantage of others, so anyone could blend in, walk into someone's house, and steal their belongings.  Of course I would have no objections to being helped by a neighbor I'm familiar with. 

 

"The church should have more diversity in its videos."

 

I'm sure the reaction would be that the church only did so with less than pure intentions.

 

Other examples? 

 

Frankly, I'm disappointed that we would allow other's (re)actions to be the defining factor in our morality. A better principle is this: "do what is right, let the consequence follow." If we have done wrong, we should apologize and make amends.That is what Christ taught. If we have the means to alleviate suffering we should do that. Ultimately, Christ is the lawgiver and the judge. If others abuse our confession or complain that our charity is too meager, so what? I really can't fathom why we'd base our actions on the opinions of those we consider to be the great and spacious building.

Edited August 25, 2015 by Buckeye

[HappyJackWagon]

It's not a matter of a critic being satisfied with a particular answer, apology, or change in policy or doctrine. It's about regaining trust in the church where the positive outweighs the negative.

 

It reminds me of Gottman's Ratio- https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200403/marriage-math

 

Gottman could mathematically predict the rates of divorce among specific couples based on mathematical analysis of the partners perceptions of satisfaction with their spouse. If the negative interactions or beliefs about the spouse outweighed the positive then even the good things the spouse did were viewed with criticism and skepticism. If the positive outweighed the negative then the spouse was much less likely to be bothered by neutral behavior.

 

If we applied this to a person's relationship with the church this means that there must be at least a balance to the ratio of positive and negative experiences or even better a imbalance in favor of the positive. In other words either positive or negative feed the overarching perception of the individual.

 

So how does that negative perception change? Certainly not with one apology or one act of good will but rather a prolonged, consistent change in approach so that trust is rebuilt.

 

My point is that it's not usually a willfull act for someone to say, I'm going to nit-pick and be negative about X,Y or Z. It's a natural reaction based on the strength of the relationship. We can blame the person who is negative if we want but it fails to recognize that the relationship requires participation from all participants and there is often a mixture of blame to go around.

[HappyJackWagon]

Getting back to the OP:

Top Ten Things the Church Should Apologize for

 

10. "The Family, and Other Living Things"

9. High council speakers, collectively and individually

8. Glenn Beck

7. Nu Skin, Neways, Melaleuca, Tahitian Noni, ...

6. Testimony Gloves

5. Stephenie Meyer

4. Tom Trails

3. Early morning seminary

2. The hideous San Diego Temple

1. This

The San Diego temple is one of the most beautiful. The old Ogden/Provo design may have required an apology and it's good to see the church is repenting of those transgressions