Redemption

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I'm trying to get you to elaborate your point of view with reason. You use words like "criticism," "higher," and "settled belief" without specifying in what senses they apply.

If you are interested in elaborating your perspective, something which could be useful and which will allow you to forego the word games and convenient shifting of assumptions that lead only to frustration for all involved, you'll answer my questions (and similar ones). If you're really sincere, you'll take time to reflect on them first.

I am expecting people to use the common-sense definitions of the words. Is the word "criticism" really unclear to you?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

I am expecting people to use the common-sense definitions of the words, something in short supply around here apparently.

Someone as educated as you should understand what "criticism" is.

Beyond special dictionaries like the OED, Black's Law Dictionary, and the like, dictionary defintions get one exactly nowhere. Words, as enthymemes, shift meaning in both time and space, hence the value of etymology. So-called common sense is rife with axiological assumptions (ideological and/or values based assumptions).

The arguments about what does and does not constitute "criticism" in any useful sense could fill an entire row of shelves in a library. At my library, they do. Is it distinct from "mockery?" Can it have constructive and destructive components? If so, which attributes belong with which components? Any credible notion of "criticism" will attempt to account for it's own limitations and assumptions. Aristotle distinguished between simple definitions, which situate a word within a larger framework of words (like the word "Dalmation" within "breed" and "canine") and definitions that could actually be operationalized (like "anxiety" as "increase in blood pressure, increase in moisture on the skin, and increase of cortisol in the blood stream," such as might be done in a scientific experiment).

In brief, I'm asking that you examine your own assumptions and to elaborate on what it is you actually think. Completing the sentence: "Criticism of Church leaders by members occurs when...but not when..." would get you off to a running start.

The more you resist elaborating on your own perspective, the more it looks like either you simply don't want to share it, or don't want to discover it, or both.

[FMCoug]

The way this thread has evolved is a classic example of what's wrong with this forum.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by FMCoug

The way this thread has evolved is a classic example of what's wrong with this forum.

I couldn't disagree more. Either Tex will examine his assumptions and elaborate on his views and will stop playing games or he will have exactly zero leverage with which to opine. The forum should actually improve.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I couldn't disagree more. Either Tex will examine his assumptions and elaborate on his views and will stop playing games or he will have exactly zero levarge with which to opine. The forum should actually improve.

If think what FM is saying is is that this thread was originally intended to help solve a local missionary/retention issue, but instead has evolved into some ideological playground.

[PaloAltoCougar]

I've been reading this Board with increasing frequency lately, and Requiem's fascinating posts have been a major reason. Given my history, I'm probably biased here, but I think the bishop deserves a definite thumbs up. I've known some (thankfully, only a few) whose pride would prevent them from acknowledging an error. But this bishop sounds like a genuinely good brother who not only admitted an error (committed, I'm very confident, with the best of intentions), but then did everything in his power to rectify the mistake. Really a great story. Thanks, Requiem.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

If think what FM is saying is is that this thread was originally intended to help solve a local missionary/retention issue, but instead has evolved into some ideological playground.

I think the original post and responses were great. If Tex actually manages to articulate his POV, that will be great too. If Mike wants to splilt the thread, he'll get no complaints from me.

[FMCoug]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

If think what FM is saying is is that this thread was originally intended to help solve a local missionary/retention issue, but instead has evolved into some ideological playground.

Close. What I'm saying is that what started out as a great post / thread about how a problem was solved in a tactful way and ended up being a great spritual experience for all involved, has turned contentious, which is what pretty much every thread in this forum does.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by FMCoug

Close. What I'm saying is that what started out as a great post / thread about how a problem was solved in a tactful way and ended up being a great spritual experience for all involved, has turned contentious, which is what pretty much every thread in this forum does.

I'm not being contentious. I'm not angry, or frustrated, or anything. I'm just hoping Tex will elaborate on his POV.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

In simplest terms, the first person you should contact is your bishop if you have a problem with something they've said or done. Afterwards, if you feel the issue has not been resolved to your satisfaction, then contact your stake president.

I think that's pretty much what happened, isn't it?