49 thoughts on “Some constructive criticism of the Bloggernacle”

1. Well, that’s why I closed comments on it. I think the combination of the vitriol and the muddied arguments (was the issue whether polygamy was good, legal, moral, theologically justified, practical, etc.?) made the discussion pointless.

   Aside from decreasing vitriol (which many of us, including me sometimes, could do better at), I’m not sure whether a better solution to the problem(s) you mention is for the bloggernacle to change or for your friends to continue to stay away from it. Each blog will set its own goals of course, but I don’t know that I consider “a place where every Saint feels comfortable” to be the main goal when I blog. Something like “a place where people who want this kind of discussion can have this discussion” is more what I have in mind. I think it is a wonderful thing that people interested in this kind of conversation have a venue for it and perhaps even more wonderful that those not interested in it can completely avoid it.

   You are right that “the prophet said so” never ends a debate in the bloggernacle. That’s because every single participant in the conversation already knew what the prophet said before they got started, so the person who chimes in at comment #43 with “the prophet said” ends up looking pedantic, self-righteous and as if they think everyone else is an idiot. Everyone else _knows_ what the prophet said–they are trying to figure out the limits, extent, rationale, reasoning, history behind, unintended consequences of, potential downfalls, caveats for, etc. “what the prophet said” in the discussion.

   I’m not entirely sure what the actual content of your constructive criticism is except maybe that we should be nice to people who defend the church’s position? In the specific example you gave, I don’t know how many points we can give Adam for defending the church’s position when he did it in a very un-church-like way. (I’m also not clear that opposing the decriminalization of polygamy is required for a faithful Saint, but I don’t want to thread jack here.)

   At any rate, I think asking bloggers to give a free pass to those defending the church’s position isn’t consonant with the purposes of a blog. (Although, of course, you set your own rules at your own blog.) If someone sets forth an idea, even when it coincides with the church’s position, their rationale is subject to scrutiny. Adam didn’t just say polygamy was wrong–he gave four very specific (and, in my opinion, very untenable) reasons for his position. So I debated his positions. People who aren’t comfortable with this kind of back-and-forth probably shouldn’t come to Times and Seasons.

2. Julie, thanks for your comments and for understanding the spirit in which my comments were intended. I’m going to need to think about my response for a bit, and it’s bed time in the Geoff B household. Perhaps others will comment overnight.

3. Geoff, I understand where you are coming from. I see how many members could be uncomforable with our discussions. But I really appreciate Julie’s response to this. I’m so glad she recognized that generally we all do know the church’s position to the issues in question. The “friends in Church” who you reference have a forum and a place to faithfully advance the Church’s position in a faith-promoting manner. But those of us who see ambiguity or would like to discuss “limits, extent, rationale, reasoning, history behind, unintended consequences of, potential downfalls, caveats for, etc” often have nowhere to go with our concerns. Many of us cannot discuss these things even in our own homes. The Bloggernacle fulfills a vital role for us. I don’t mind seeing the Church’s position defended in an intelligent way. But I don’t think we need to hold ourselves back from pointing out flaws or spouting our own ill-considered opinions for the sake of politeness. I love the Bloggernacle and I love threads that get heated. Sure, it’s not for everyone. But I don’t think it is promoting apostasy.

4. Geoff, you’re not going to watch fireworks??? Now, that’s apostasy!

5. My answer to people who complain about the existence of the blogs is that they don’t have to read them. They can stay in gospel doctrine or in the nursery or wherever and ignore the ‘nacle. They can use their fora at Church to not bring in ideas talked in the Bloggernacle.

   It doesn’t bother me that they don’t read it. That just means that when I do plagiarize a golden nugget from Julie, or DKL, or bbell (or even MikeinWeHo), no one will recognize it and think I came up with it all on my own.

6. Now hold on there just a minute little missy.

   Every “participant” may already know what the Prophet has said, but not necessarily every reader. I’ve done alot of reading in my 43 years in the Church, but I haven’t read it all. I could do much more reading. I have really enjoyed getting quotes out of the ‘nacle that I’ve never seen before (or have forgotten). So, I think it is a helpful thing at times for someone to chime in. Of course, the _delivery_ can be “pedantic, self-righteous and as if they think everyone else is an idiot” – which is NOT appreciated – even if the _information_ is not. Not every reader on every topic knows the historical and orthodox context of every discussion item.

   I agree that the rationale for our faith is open for questioning and that can lead to an enrichment of our understandings. I also agree that “…people in the Bloggernacle (can) get… caught up in intellectual games…” or in rationalizations for their own private interpretations. And that can lead to apostasy.

7. Geoff,
   Thanks for this post. (Geoff: Apologies in advance for the long comment. If you would rather have me post this to my blog, email me and I will post it over there.)

   My answer to people who complain about the existence of the blogs is that they don’t have to read them.

   While I realize the ‘nacle certainly isn’t church, and it doesn’t have the same impact that church has on us, is it really the charitable position to take to say, “If you don’t like it, leave, or don’t come by at all?” Again, if you are driven away from the ‘nacle, it isn’t even in the same ballpark as feeling driven away from Church. But still, it hurts individuals, and it can hurt the Church. It doesn’t help with misunderstandings and often already strained relationships (even divisiveness) that often occur regarding hot and hard topics. The labels and corners that we adhere to are very damaging. Too often, there is too much divisiveness, and these kinds of interations intensify that feeling.

   Why should there be “those who are comfy at or with the church” and “those who may want to discuss more than you can at SS?” Why assume that these groups are mutually exclusive? They aren’t, but often discussions take place as if they are. If people come to the ‘nacle, it means they are interested in discussion outside of SS by default, no? But that doesn’t mean that SS-like elements should be left off limits, does it? It seems just a little more room for this could go a long way, especially when most of us profess membership and belief in the Church.

   Julie (#1), my thought is this: If we can’t judge people’s righteousness (which is true), then perhaps we ought to be a little less judgmental or quick to label other people’s comments when they take the “the prophet says” approach. To be honest, your labels seem unfairly harsh to me. Just because someone pipes in with “but the prophet says ____” doesn’t mean that they mean to be self-righteous or insensitive or pedantic. It seems that if we are willing to discuss, we should be willing to have some review or consideration of the teachings themselves included in the discussion (even if it seems useless to some).

   Besides (and I think this is important!), there will usually be those reading and/or participating who aren’t completely familiar with our Church and the intricacies of its teachings. (Or even those, as mondo cool said, who have forgotten some things that have been said.) Therefore, I think we ought to leave more room for the Church’s positions being brought into the conversation as they might at times (rather than assuming that it’s patronizing or unnecessary to bring the specifics up).

   Not everyone who comments will necessarily be concerned only for the discussion. (I say this because sometimes I have brought things (like a quote) into a discussion not for those who obviously would be aware of what I mentioned, but for those who might not be. I think there ought to be room for this, especially as the internet is often a way that people become more familiar with the Church (and the ‘nacle shows up so much on internet searches). I think we are being short-sided if our only purposes focus just on the sake of discussion for our benefits. If the ‘nacle doesn’t provide some presentation of the basic teachings along the way about topics, it seems we might even do the Church a disservice.)

   BTW, I totally understand that there are many people who come here who have had the prophets’ words thrown in their faces as a weapon, and this should not be. (IMO, This is a result of misunderstanding and the divisions I mentioned earlier, as well as simple unkindness.) BUT, it seems that often the assumption is that everyone who takes this approach is seeking to punch someone in the gut, and this so often isn’t true. Unkindness can and does go both ways, especially in this realm.

   I think that for those of us who profess membership in the Church, we ought to be seeking kindness and charity in all of our interactions, even online. Too often, this isn’t the case. And it most certainly isn’t just those who are vocal and deliberate commenters who bring up with the prophets or Church say who are guilty of this. But as the post seems to mention, often they are the ones shut down and shut out, labeled, censured, etc while others are allowed to say what they will, however they will. This inconsistency reflects poorly on the ‘nacle in my opinion (the censuring and censoring seems inconsistent to me), and hinders the potential for the things I mentioned above (understanding, relationships, breaking down the division mentality, etc., as well as potential missionary work).

   I also think that if we all realized more readily that no one’s mind is likely to be changed along the way, that we might all be more willing to respect each other’s space and opinions a bit more. …to have it be more a place of “seek to understand” rather than “seek to be understood and be right.” This includes not calling people to repentance, either for ‘not being faithful enough’ or being “pedantic” or “self-righteous” about support of the prophet and Church. Neither approach is fair, Christlike, or appropriate.

8. Hm. And now I see that my last sentence came across in a way that didn’t sound very nice. It seems to me that either approach could be problematic (even if sometimes it’s right). Is that any better? 🙂

9. It is fine to say “Hey, we really should all get along better and be less contentious and more harmonious and sensitive,” but the reality is otherwise. Adam Greenwood and bbell are a couple of lightening rods at T&S. Both of them have a long history there, Geoff, so saying Adam is being attacked for defending the standard Church position isnt really driving to the heart of the matter.

   The reality is the Bloggernacle is a relatively small community and anyone who stays figures out what the other participants are like, what their pet topics are where they are generally coming from. Adam is very active on T&S and frequently ends up in the middle of a lot of firestorms there. When people lash out at him over the polygamy thing and call him “mean” it is not just because of his comments in that thread. It is because of his overall behavior on T&S in general and his comments on that particular thread that inspired it. Adam has made his bed, and now he is sleeping in it.

   If average members of the LDS Church dont like T&S and BCC, then so be it. They dont have to read it, just like anything else. Dont like Dialogue or Sunstone? Dont subscribe. Its just that easy. The Bloggernacle doesnt have to tailor itself to the mainstream Mormon audience in order to be more popular and acceptable to the average member. Why should they? If those mainstream Mormons want to blog about their own pet kooky doctrines, they can. But why bother? They have their built-in networks already established, they have the Ensign, the New Era and the Friend. There you go. Maintream Mormons dont really care about the bulk of the stuff being discussed on BCC and T&S, so they dont read it. If they find it unsettling, fine. Go watch reruns on BYU TV instead. Yay, everyone is happy.

10. Julie, I guess I would agree with comments #6 and #7. While I completely respect your right to discuss whatever you want — and I have stated several times that I agree with BIV’s comment #3 that the Bloggernacle fulfills an unfulfilled need by providing a forum for some things to be discussed — I still think your position in #1 is, well, elitist and limiting.

    I would agree with you that our visions of the purpose of blogging are so different that from your perspective there really is no change you could make that would bring our visions in line. Perhaps a bit more charity to those who defend the Church position would be appropriate, but in my experience the snarking pretty quickly takes over, so that’s a losing battle. I have a general feeling that the Bloggernacle has improved in some senses — when I first started hanging around here four years ago I had the impression there was a lot more making fun of Church authorities and positions than there is today, so I guess I should count my blessings.

    It seems to me that one of the primary messages of the scriptures — if not THE primary message — is that obedience is the right course even though there are times it doesn’t seem to make sense to be obedient. I still have a huge problem explaining to non-members why I can’t drink coffee and caffeinated tea but I can drink a Coke. At the end of the day, I just say, “it’s about faith and obedience.” I guess I wish members of the Bloggernacle were more open to this viewpoint, that sometimes you have to be obedient. I’m re-reading the Old Testament (the NIV version, which I much prefer), and it seems like this is what Moses, Joshua and all of the prophets were trying to say. I can just hear them through the ages talking to latter-day Saints saying, “look, just do what the prophets say and everything will be OK. Don’t spend so much time arguing over nuances. The prophets have made it pretty clear what the right course is in 2007.” Is this a sophisticated, intellectual argument? Probably not, but I feel it is the right one. I feel like that viewpoint is simply not respected in the Bloggernacle, and it makes me sad, frankly.

11. BIV, #4, I have two words for you: “sick toddler.” That should explain it.

12. BIV, I must be an apostate as well since I didn’t watch any fireworks (e.g.- didn’t read BCC or T&S yesterday). 🙂

    Great post, Geoff.

13. Geoff, from your comment # 10,

    Perhaps a bit more charity to those who defend the Church position would be appropriate…

    I think you are on shaky ground there, Geoff. It presumes that you know better than others what the church’s position actually is. On the thread in question, yes it is clear that practicing polygamy will get you ex’ed. But has the church ever taken a position that polygamy should be illegal in every country in the world? If so, I haven’t seen it, but I am willing to be corrected. On that thread, I did not see people arguing for the practice of polygamy by church members, but they were attempting to argue about whether is should be proscribed by the law of the land. On that question, I don’t think the church’s position is a clear guide. The church forbids us to use coffee, but I’m not sure the brethren would support a law that banned its use by everyone. We all know what Gordon B. Hinckley thinks about piercings and tattoos, but we’d be nuts to start writing letters to city hall demanding that women only be allowed one piercing per ear.

    While it is disrespectful to the prophets to disregard their words, it is also disrespectful to add to them. It is as though we want to say that we know better than they do. The blogger in question on the thread in question went beyond the church’s position, e.g. by suggesting that adultery should be made illegal.

    I hope your child is feeling better.

14. You should visit Our Thoughts more often. I get taken to task for encouraging apostasy. In fact, I was recently chastised for not using my priesthood leadership position to reign in what was viewed as ill-speaking of the Lord’s anointed.

15. Great discussion!
    As a person who has chosen to remove his name from the records of the LDS church, I often have to be somewhat careful in how I say things on various LDS blogs. When I do get slapped on the hand (and it happens), it’s rarely for what I say, but rather how I say it. I get reminded of the need to make my comment in a way that is sensitive to the views of others on the particular blog.

    I think the same applies to individuals like Adam. At least in the bloggernacle, those who believe that “when the brethren speak, the thinking has been done” seem to be a minority, even though the majority are faithful LDS members. The bloggernacle exists primarily because people of an LDS background want to discuss LDS topics in some degree of depth, including other perspectives. It’s important that a perspective like Adam’s is included in the discussion. On the other hand, it is unhelpful for a person to enter the discussion under a self–appointed mission to *end* the discussion, by calling the participants to repentance for even daring to discuss. Just as I sometimes cross the line on tone, these comments do the same–they simply cross it in the opposite direction.

16. Kim, for the record, I just don’t think it’s right to question somebody’s righteousness and accuse them of apostasy when you don’t have authority over them. The only people who have the keys to make those claims about you are your bishop, stake president, etc, not some anonymous guy over the internet. As I say, it took me some time to learn that lesson.

    I don’t think it’s out of bounds, however, to say you don’t like the way people are posting/commenting about a general authority/Church policy and that you are offended by such comments.

17. Mark IV, #13, just a reminder that the Church has repeatedly endorsed a FMA, which would limit marriage to one man and one woman. This is about as extreme a position you can take to make it clear that you are opposed to polygamy in this day and age. Modern-day prophets have made it extremely, brilliantly and abundantly clear what their position is in the United States on polygamy: it is wrong and it should be illegal.

    Here is more on the FMA from Wikipedia:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment

    My understanding is that those in polygamous relationships outside of the United States are not proselytized and can’t be baptized. If the T&S discussion had asked, “what do we feel about non-U.S. polygamy in Africa and the Middle East?” that would have been a completely different discussion. But the sympathetic comments about polygamy were focused primarily on the family that was profiled, ie a U.S.-based family.

    As to Adam’s comments on adultery, I happen to agree with him, but I also agree with you that if that were the only issue, then I would never have written this post. The ridicule he faced was primarily due to defending the Church position on polygamy.

    Thanks for the nice words on my little boy. Let me tell you, when your toddler is sick, the whole house is turned upside down. Luckily, he appears to feel better today.

18. #17 Geoff:
    “the Church has repeatedly endorsed a FMA, which would limit marriage to one man and one woman. This is about as extreme a position you can take to make it clear that you are opposed to polygamy in this day and age.”

    I have to disagree, Geoff. Such language provides considerable “wiggle room” for polygamy. Opponents would argue that plural marriage is a marriage between one man and multiple women. (“Big Love” seems to urge this definition, with the wives repeatedly talking about how they are “married to each other” in their family structure.) Proponents would argue that plural marriage represents several distinct marriages, each of which happens to be one man and one woman. In the end, the Supreme Court would make a political stand, choosing whichever semantic argument supported the majority opinion.

    “As to Adam’s comments on adultery, I happen to agree with him, but I also agree with you that if that were the only issue, then I would never have written this post. The ridicule he faced was primarily due to defending the Church position on polygamy.”

    As I read that discussion, Geoff, I did not see Adam defending the LDS church’s position on plural marriage. Rather, I saw Adam restating the LDS church’s position on plural marriage, in such a way as to condemn further discussion beyond that restatement. He was not participating in a continuing discussion. Rather, he was trying to put an end to it by fiat.

19. Nick, you’re not correct on the FMA. The FMA that was endorsed by the Church says the following:

    “Marriage in the United States of America shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.”

    “Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”

    There is absolutely no wiggle room for polygamy at all.

    If you read the Wikipedia article I linked in #17, and if you do some research on the motives of the promoters of the FMA, they were primarily focused on SSM, but their secondary focus was on polygamous marriages. They wanted to stop all marriages except those of one man and one woman. And the Church endorsed the FMA at least three times in 2003 and 2004.

    Julie, (#1), it appears that “every single participant in the conversation already knew what the prophet said before they got started” is also factually incorrect.

    Right about now is when light bulbs should be going on over everybody’s head and they should be saying to themselves, “oh, now we get why people like Adam and Bbell and Geoff B keep on entering these discussions to remind people of the Church position — a lot of people don’t know the Church position even when they say they do.”

20. “They can stay in gospel doctrine or in the nursery or wherever and ignore the ‘nacle.”

    Funny. I’m teaching 9-10-year-olds at present. Before that I was teaching 3-year-olds. And before that I was teaching Gospel Doctrine.

    Yet I have a Ph.D. in astronomy from the California Institute of Technology, and am presently working for a national laboratory.

    I frankly resent the condescension. Questioning the Brethren in a public forum is not a sign of intelligence. Quite the contrary.

21. Kent, I chose not to take queuno’s comment that way, but there are a few others that definitely are condescending. And that’s exactly why I wrote this post.

22. I want to address the issue of elitism/condescension/us versus them thinking.

    Maybe some bloggers feel that way. (queuno’s comment could certainly be taken that way.) I’ve been inspired by Jim F.’s words that “intellectuals” in the church should consider themselves to have a hobby that is no more or less important than golf. I used to scrapbook and read sb message boards. I consider that no better, worse, or more important than the bloggernacle. So when m & m says, “shouldn’t we make them welcome?” I say, “Why should we go out of our way to make a scrapbook message board a place where non-scrappers want to hang out?” If someone doesn’t like the bloggernacle, they shouldn’t participate. Because I don’t think we’re doing anything privileged or important here, people who don’t like it should be free to not like it. (Again, I’m referring to the back-and-forth, not the unkindness, which we should all work harder to eliminate).

    I disagree with the linking of the FMA to polygamy, but that really isn’t the point of this post so I won’t threadjack.

    One more thought for m & m from #7: maybe it would be useful to preface the string of GA quotes with “I’m sure the OP already knows this, but for any newbies . . .” because when the quotes are addressed to the OP, the insinuation is that s/he isn’t aware of them or is in clear violation of them. I think a *lot* of threads go downhill once the dynamic of “I represent the clear position of the church” is set in motion–suffice it to say that if the OP or commenter thought that there _was_ “a clear position of the church”, there wouldn’t be a discussion. Another more useful way to approach it might be, “I am sure you are aware of the teachings about X. I’m wondering how those fit in to what you are suggesting here?” But suffice it to say that I have never, ever seen a thread happily resolved _or_ go on with a non-confrontational tone after someone does either the GA quote dump or the “clear position of the church.” In terms of improving the climate in the bloggernacle, a little less of (what is usually perceived as) hubris on the part of those who think they represent “the clear position of the church” might go a long way.

23. Julie, actually the FMA linked to polygamy is central to my argument. Again, I recognize that the primary reason for the FMA was SSM. But an extremely important secondary reason was polygamy. Why else would the Church have come out three times in favor of an FMA that endorsed only “one man, one woman” marriage if it were not to endorse both purposes of the FMA? The church could have suggested a more open-ended FMA with language like, “marriage shall only consist of unions between men and women.”

    If you could convince me that the Church did not consider both purposes in its support of the FMA, I would likely back off this issue for the most part. I could even be convinced to agree with your claim of hubris.

    While I take to heart your argument that claims of representing the “clear position of the Church” are by their very nature contentious, what else are we supposed to do when somebody makes claims about Church policy that we believe to be erroneous? To give an extreme example, if somebody wrote a post claiming that the Church has clearly endorsed giving the priesthood to women, how are we supposed to respond to that except by saying, “sorry, but that’s not Church policy.”

    So, we have a post in which many commentators are sympathetic to polygamy and appear to endorse it. We have a commentator saying in a variety of different ways, “folks, the Church opposes polygamy in all ways possible.” And then we have the commentator being attacked for defending Church policy.

    And in this very thread we have people making clearly erroneous claims about the nature of Church policy akin to my fictional example that the Church has endorsed giving the priesthood to women.

    So, if I point out that the erroneous claims are indeed erroneous, I am filled with “hubris.” But if I let the erroneous claims stand, and allow readers to go away with incorrect impressions about Church policy, I am “improving the climate in the Bloggernacle.”

    I’m not sure I get the logic of that argument.

24. I usually just lurk here these days but wanted to add some thoughts.

    First, Geoff B sometimes what you say is very beneficial for me to read. It helps in ways that I will not elaborate.

    I do find much that is good in the ‘nacle. I have met people whose examples mean a lot. Threads can tend to digress and I have been at fault at times.

    I have my issues and hope that they do not spill over in a negative way. I try to guard against that but slip up.

    I believe that we are told to stay close to the center of the Church. As such, I have concern when the goals of some people seem to offer a specific viewpoint or voice that may not receive the attention that they would like. Sometimes what they say does seem rather valid and it really is speaking more against Church culture than policy at times.

    And I am not saying that these people do not value and hold sacred the Gospel. I am just saying that there are times when I think we need to have more respect. And I do not think all subjects lend themselves well to such open discussions. In addition, I do not think we should be critical of Church leaders.

    When I was in the Young Single Adult program, I was supposed to team teach with someone on the topic of Zion. The other person was a no show, which left me in a bit of a bind. Preparing and giving that talk was very pivitol to me. My circumstances were very bad at the time and the thought and hope of Zion stirred me. How I longed for that. And as such, I felt that I should be ever careful not to backk bite or criticize leadership. I have not in recent years had that strong grip on those ideals.

    I think when I first encountered an LDS Forum and later blogs that I expected more of Latter Day Saints. Now my thinking leaves more room for all of us being human and feeling things out. In addition, we have have vices in different directions. Plus, a person can have such identity from convictions.

    Well, I think I promised always to use my real name once upon a time. But I have embarassed myself far to many times that I plan not to come back. But I love you all at this blog!

25. Regarding the notion that the Bloggernacle is a free-for-all that allows any sort of discussion so long as it is critical of the brethren, that is simply wrong. To my knowledge, antis trolling around the nacle are usually swiftly banned.

    To a great degree, I think that the problem being discussed here stems not from a desire to denigrate the Brethren and the “clear position.” As Julie noted, most of the regular participants are somewhat familiar with the basic outlines of the clear position coming in. Perhaps a brief review of the clear position (such as m&m and Julie suggest) might be helpful, but can you imagine the flame wars that would ensue regarding what should or should not be included in such? The truth is that we have trends in policy that may or may not be eternal and we have very few dogmatic beliefs. Attempts to state that policy is doctrine, when we don’t really know if such is the case, and attempts to extend dogma beyond its limits will likely be met with a firestorm of opposition. That said, I am of the camp who believes that Adam was justified in smacking those quasi-fundies down. I personally think that they represent a far-greater threat to Mormonism than all those lib Mormons out there in the ‘Nacle (of course, I may be biased).

    Regarding Adam, I stopped reading the thread before it got bad, but my impression of Adam is this: He likes playing the bad guy. As such, he can be mean. Not that it is ever right to be mean, but it can be a lot of fun if you are in the right. Adam is a big boy and he can hack it. There is no need to get offended on his behalf (although, of course, he can feel free to disagree with me on this 🙂 ).

    I have recently become engaged in a discussion on an anti blog where the moderation has been capricious. I have often thought that it would be great if some other mormons were there to defend me (although there have been some). But the truth is that I know I am entering hostile territory there and that my presence will only be tolerated to an extent. I know that I am a gadfly there; I can live with that.

    To be honest, I am not sure if this relates. T&S or BCC certainly aren’t anti-blogs. But my point is that Adam has adopted an online persona (as has Geoff, as has Julie, and as I have). These personae are by degrees nicer and meaner than we all are in real life (that being the nature of online discussion). I don’t feel like the “clear positions” of the church are regularly attacked in the ‘nacle, although there are certainly examples of that on occasion. In responding to your friends, I would simply say that, like church itself, it isn’t always uplifting or inspiring, but that it strives for the good and the true. I don’t know what else you could ask of us.

26. “In terms of improving the climate in the bloggernacle, a little less of (what is usually perceived as) hubris on the part of those who think they represent “the clear position of the church” might go a long way.

    Julie, agreed. We all need more humility. Yet I’ve seen much more hubris coming from those who claim to be, or posture as, intellectuals on T&S and BCC. (And I’ve never observed you claim to be, or posture as, an intellectual. You have way too much common sense. You’re one of my heroes, er, heroines, on the ‘nacle, combining smarts, common sense and good writing. Your husband’s a lucky guy!)

    I also realize that T&S and BCC are the playground or sand-box of many self-styled “intellectuals.” Those who come in and make comments about different ways to play may not always be welcomed.

    As far as Geoff B’s take on that thread at T&S, I pretty much agree with him: Adam did not go out of his way to be nicey-nice, but basically and technically he was correct, and got an unfair shake as far as the railing accusations against him.

    Another reason why I support Adam’s and Geoff’s speaking up on the issue, is that it’s one thing to hold private opinions of something [which is expressly against church policy, and currently illegal] and to even openly tolerate it, but to openly speak for or contend for it’s legalization, and hence it’s approval by society at large, crosses some sort of boundary.

    I don’t think the issue is comparable to the church’s past stance on civil-rights and the priesthood ban, even though others would like to draw that parallel.

    Perhaps we should feel some sympathy in regards to the polygamy issue, because polygamy is something the church used to preach and practice. But that makes the issue all the more complicated to discuss.

    But if some people want to show tolerance for modern-day polygamists because the church used to be polygamist, then by the same reasoning those people should show more tolerance for modern day racists, because the church used to be racist in its teaching and practice.

    Yes, the church stopped practicing polygamy, but never repudiated the princple. But similarly, OD-2 stopped the racist practice of denying the priesthood to worthy black males, but did not repudiate the “less valiant” theory, or “Curse of Cain/Ham” teachings.

    As Geoff implies, it comes down to pet causes and whose ox is being gored.

27. There is something else that I want to address. In persuasion, it is not often possible to get someone very polarized on one issue to shift to an others view entirely. Yet, they may be some shifting from the original position. I do believe it is so important to be careful what one exposes themselves to both online and in the media. I do not find certain things that we are told to be evil to really be that bad in my mind because I have let in too much of the culture of today. But I have to trust that I have been exposed to much and what is evil but not seem as much is really evil.

    I do have firm values in many areas. I also think a lot on both sides of an issue. There are many ideas, thoughts, feelings, that I have that I try not to post online because I do not think it is good to make them public.

    A final note, I happen to like Adam Greenwood. No, he didn’t pay me to say this. I think that I have a gift for understanding people and where they come from. I may not have read some of the comments that people refer to by Adam. I have read a lot of fine comments by him. He is a passionate person. And if he feels a need to point out the Church’s position, I would think that he is doing so because he thinks it is appropriate to point out. I tend to be the type to try not to defend at all costs. Having a super strong edit button, it is sometimes hard for me to understand when people are mean. I can’t say that I can recall Adam being mean. I heard him being really funny on a Podcast once with Steve Evans.

    In addition, I want to add that I don’t think it is nice to say mean things about either Harry Reid or can’t think of his name yet …Oh, Mitch Romney…coming from a very liberal background in my family though becoming more conservative in my adult years, I may have my opinions. But I think we need to be careful not to be negative online about. But I tend to have a lot of rules and evidently people think this is fair game. We do have to be ever mindful how many derive a lot of their identity from politics so if you attack their politics, they may take it personal.

    I think there is room for good discussion in the ‘nacle. I realize that people give a lot more room to what they think is appropriate than me. And they are probably right as I tend to be rigid.

28. “…is that it’s one thing to hold private opinions of something [which is expressly against church policy, and currently illegal] and to even openly tolerate it, but to openly speak for or contend for it’s legalization, and hence it’s approval by society at large, crosses some sort of boundary.”

    i’m not sure that thread was questioning church policy.

    I am not one who believes that my social views should mimic the official church stance. I like to separate what’s right for me(based on my religious views) from what’s right for the rest of the world.

    I’m a big, BIG fan of letting those who don’t not hold the same beliefs in religion, god, politics live their lives separate from what I believe. so when I speak up, publicly, it’s because I already know what the right decision is for me personally but I don’t believe it’s right to impose those views on the rest of the world. (i’m thinking “freedom of conscious” here.)

    so there you have it in a not so succinct way!

29. And in this very thread we have people making clearly erroneous claims about the nature of Church policy…

    Hey, you must be talking about me! LOL!

    Geoff, I am aware of the FMA. It is pretty clear, at least to me, that polygamists were not the target. If it were as clear as you claim, I’m surprised it didn’t come up on the thread in question. Until the church repudiates section 132, I don’t think we will see anything about polygamy that can be said to be unambiguous.

    The problem with asserting that statements by GAs are always and everywhere authoritative is that they say a lot of different things. In a single general conference, we had had a talk by one apostle which said that people who get offended are at fault, and that they need to get over it. Another talk in the same conference emphasized how we need to be careful about not giving offense. For all I know, there has been a bloggernacle thread into the hundreds of comments wherein partisans of both sides told each other to shut up by using their favorite GA quotes. It is an easy game to play. For instance, just in this thread, I could call you to repentance and dang you to heck if you didn’t do what I say. You admitted that you drink colas, and yet we have a VERY CLEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE STATEMENT from Gordon B. Hinckley (Larry King interview) where he says members shouldn’t do that. I’m assuming you have an understanding about what he meant there that is similar to mine, since I enjoy colas, too. If someone were to attempt to lay the smack down on us by calling upon prophetic authority, we would both shrug and dismiss that person.

30. #19 Geoff,
    I’m sorry, but I just can’t agree with you. “Unmarried couples or groups” does not adequately cover plural marriage. It ends up being a semantic argument over whether a man with four wives has (a) one marriage which includes one man and four women, or (b) four marriages, each of which includes one man and one woman. I understand your point that the drafters may also have wished to prohibit plural marriage, but if so, they did a poor job of it.

    #23 Geoff,
    You seem to have shifted focus in this post. I see no issue at all about an informed person posting a correction in regard to the official position of the LDS church, when someone else has misstated the official position of the LDS church. That makes complete sense. Your original blog entry, however, seems to focus on a different behavior–that of posting the official LDS position as the complete answer, and effectively, the end of any and all discussion on a given issue. The latter tends to be problematic.

31. Mark IV and Nick, I guess I have to give up. The FMA was clearly aimed at polygamy as well as SSM. The Church clearly supports the FMA and has made it one of the most central public issues of the last few years. If you don’t want to recognize that, there’s no reason to keep on going around and around in circles. I wish both of you gentlemen a great day. I am going to go buy myself a Coke.

32. Geoff,
    You may well be right that the FMA was aimed at polygamy as well as gay marriage. You seem to follow politics closely; I, on the other hand, do not. When the FMA was marketed to the general public, the impression I got was that its sole purpose was gay marriage. Polygamy didn’t come up. So even though you may well be right in the underlying purpose according to those who drafted and pushed it, I think Mark and Nick are right that it wasn’t “clearly” aimed at polygamy.

    I disagree with Mark re: the relevance of Section 132 (I think the Church has unambiguously rejected polygamy), but I don’t find that unambiguous rejection in the FMA, and I recognize that others may disagree with my reading of current church doctrine.

33. (And enough already with the Coke–there are way better soft drinks out there!)

34. If someone doesn’t like the bloggernacle, they shouldn’t participate.

    Here’s the point I was trying to make, though: If someone is participating, they probably want to participate. They may not fall into a mold someone else thinks they should (what does an “intellectual” look like anyway?”), or express their points of view (or interpretation of the Church’s point of view) in just “the right way” (whatever that means). But shouldn’t they feel they can express or share their point of view without having someone jump on them?

    Truth be told, there are a lot of different types of people who like this kind of discussion. What I have seen, though, is that some are actually hesitant to comment, though, because of the way they have seen some people treated (usually as has been described here).

    On this note, I think it’s a bit much to expect that statements will always be couched just so, especially since there are newcomers to the ‘nacle all of the time and there is no way for everyone to know or anticipate all of the unwritten rules that seem to exist (and that vary from blog to blog, and from person to person). I’m not trying to say that the ‘nacle become online SS, but it’s not as easy to define as a scrapbookers group, either. What should the “qualifications” be anyway? Who should decide? Why can’t it just be a place for various people to discuss, regardless of the specifics of their points of view?

    I think Geoff really gets at the core of the issue for me at the end of 23…I think there is a double-standard that exists.

    if I point out that the erroneous claims are indeed erroneous, I am filled with “hubris.” But if I let the erroneous claims stand, and allow readers to go away with incorrect impressions about Church policy, I am “improving the climate in the Bloggernacle.” I’m not sure I get the logic of that argument.

    In addition, again, I think that if various opinions/points of view are part of discussion, then it seems to me that having some people share that they think x, y or z from the Church is the right position should be allowed, even if there is disagreement. Rather than attack the person, just address the issue or kindly disgree, just like any other comment would be either addressed or ignored. (Or kindly point out the problematic part of the comment and help someone see how their comment might be misunderstood.) Just slapping such a person down only intensifies misunderstanding and division.

    As a side not, I don’t recall often seeing prophetic quotes, etc. used as weapons (and I have said before that they shouldn’t be!), but they are all too often (IMO erroneously) perceived as such. Frankly, I think discussions often go downhill when quotes, etc. are brought up not because of the comments themselves, but because of the reaction to them. The (IMO usually unnecessary) policing and pouncing can be as dogmatic or “claiming to be right” as any comment about church policy or position may be.

35. I think #34 was my cue to be finished with this conversation–I think we’re all talking past each other because we don’t want to name names or point to particular offensive comments and I don’t think we are defining terms like “attack” “support” etc. the same way.

    Suffice it to say that I don’t think conservative commenters (which, I think, usually includes me) get any worse than they deserve from the venue. If you defend the church’s position Q based on reasons X, Y, and Z on a blog, it is only fair to expect that another commenter will point out that X doesn’t fit, Elder so and so once said Y was a myth, that Z is being misapplied, and that Q may not even be an eternal principle but rather a cultural accomodation. If you don’t enjoy this type of conversation, find the kind of blog that doesn’t have it. But don’t walk around acting like you’ve been robbed because a certain blog refuses to recast itself in the image of what you think a blog should look like.

    No one has suggested that erroneous claims be allowed to go uncontested. All I’m saying is that some people think they can spot an erroneous claim at 900 yards and then get irked when others don’t automatically agree with them,. The entire point of the major LDS blogs is to discuss whether (and to what extent, and in what circumstances) the claim is correct. If you don’t like that sort of thing, start your own blog.

    (Again: nothing I’ve said should be constituted as support of rudeness in discussions.)

36. In my opinion, the wording of the FMA which makes it obvious that it was aimed at polygamy as well as SSM is the word “one” used twice, “one” man and “one” woman, not “a” man and “a” woman.

    That struck me the first time I read it, before the debate over whether the FMA was aimed at polygamy.

    If the word “a” had been there, then Nick L’s suggestion that it can be nuanced would be correct. But, to me at least, the word “one” seems to prevent that nuancing.

    But I am almost persuaded by Nick’s reasoning that a man with multiple wives doesn’t have one marriage, he has multiple marriages, and _each single one_ of his marriages is to “one” wife.

    With the popularity of “polyamory,” swinging, and open marriages, I can see why polygamy is, or should be, a big deal.

    Go to any non-religious singles/dating web site. The number of people (even many women) who list “polyamory” or “poly” in their key words really surprises me. In effect, that’s just another way of saying “swinger”, but in more up-to-date lingo, with the side benefit of implying they’re really in love with their swing-mates.

    On another tack, I was mildly amused by the news report of two heterosexual unmarried males (who are friends with each other) in Canada who wanted to get married so the one could get the spousal health insurance benefits of the other.

    It raised all sorts of questions about marriages of convenience, and regulations to determine “real” marriage that probably wouldn’t apply to many heterosexual monogamous marriages.

    So I wonder if polygamy were legalized, what sorts of marriages-of-convenience it would engender.

    I’ve sometimes joked with a female friend, that if we’re both still single when she’s on her death bed, that I’d summon a justice-of-the-peace and marry her at her bedside, so she could die a married woman. But, that if she were to miraculously recover, then I’d have to kill her.

    Isaiah 4:1, “And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.” sounds a lot like marriages of convenience. A lot of elderly, divorced or never-married women in the church have their own homes and pension, so some righteous high-priests could probably take them on as multiple-wives, and not have to worry too much about them.

    Just some interesting mildly-humorous what-ifs.

37. Julie,

    For the record, I have been discussing personal attacks and unnecessarily bullying/intimidating that sometimes occurs, not simply disagreements with ideas. There is a huge difference between the two. I’m also not suggesting that blogs overhaul their existence to cater to the conservative, FWIW.

    Sorry you feel we are talking past one another.

38. re: 5

    “Even” MikeInWeHo??? LOL, that made my evening. My comments in the Bloggernacle aren’t going to land me in Outer Darkness, are they?? I’d like to avoid that.

    BTW, friends, debating the intent of the FMA is about as useful as discussing Elvis or the ERA (does anyone here even remember the ERA??). All 3 are dead.

39. Just one question. Has the Church came out and made statements about bloging about the Church or its doctrine, problems, issues, ect.?

40. P. R., that’s an interesting question. There are others who are more qualified to answer it than I because they watch these things more closely.

    I work a little in Church public affairs, and I can tell you that there is, for the most part, very little knowledge about the Bloggernacle among most people. Meridian magazine is very well-received by Church leaders. A few of them may have heard of T&S and BCC, which are the biggest and best-known blogs.

    If you go to the LDS newsroom, you will find several mentions of blogs here:

    http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=9ae411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD

    I don’t think anybody is in danger of facing Church discipline for comments made on blogs unless they run a blatantly anti-Mormon site and are actively trying to destroy the Church. There is no “doctrine police” trying to make sure everybody marches in lock-step. I doubt your bishop or stake president could care less what you write on a blog.

41. Aside, MikeInWeHo, ERA was reintroduced in March of 2007 to both houses of Congress, which I thought was interesting:

    http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/legislation.htm

    and a Washington Post article, “New Drive Afoot to Pass ERA”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/27/AR2007032702357_pf.html

    So it might be only “mostly dead,” as Billy Crystal in the Princess Bride would put it. Didn’t mean to threadjack, but it seemed like the comments had spent themselves out, more or less.

42. Wow, I didn’t know the ERA was back. Well, political resurrections do occur. “Mostly dead,” that’s a great phrase. Thanks, Tona!

43. Mike, “mostly dead” is an ancient Jewish tradition. Like Lazarus in the tomb. It was 4 days, he was decomposing, stank, he was beyond “mostly dead” and had become “really dead”. As opposed to the other people Jesus brought back to life previously, who had only been “dead” a little bit, and, as was often the case, there were people who merely had a very low heart rate and extremely shallow breathing and were sometimes mistaken as “dead” only to “wake up”.

    So the unbelievers probably nay-sayed those earlier raise-the-dead miracles by dismissing them as cases where the person wasn’t ‘really dead.’

    In Gospel Doctrine class, it is sometimes speculated that Jesus tarried before going back to see Mary/Martha and raise Lazarus in order to show that he had absolute power to restore life to a “really dead” and decomposing corpse, and that it was not a case of “easily” restoring life to someone who had their “life” switch “temporarily” turned off.

    On rare occasions that happens today in morgues, when someone “wakes up” in the morgue, after a sloppy doctor or EMT pronounced them dead. They were only “mostly dead”, not “really dead”. In other words, had an undectably slow and low-volume heart beat, and extremely slow and shallow breathing.

    P.S. I love Mel Brooks’ movies. May the Schwartz be with you.

44. I actually agree with Geoff’s original.

    Being here can make us weird. I think it’s easy to lose touch with reality.

    I think I realized this when I went on a Christian blog, tried to explain the Church’s doctrine and position, and actually had an anti-Mormon correct me on what my church really believes.

    And she was right!

    I can’t tell you how odd that feels. Honestly, I’m not even sure I’m in the same religion sometimes.

45. I thinks its okay to get back to first principles during an argument especially when someone thinks the conversation has strayed far from the straight and narrow.

    We shouldn’t feel so smug that we refuse to look down at our compass during the journey.

46. The “friends in Church” who you reference have a forum and a place to faithfully advance the Church’s position in a faith-promoting manner. But those of us who see ambiguity or would like to discuss “limits, extent, rationale, reasoning, history behind, unintended consequences of, potential downfalls, caveats for, etc” often have nowhere to go with our concerns.

    I don’t think that Sunday Schools are or ought to be a forum for semi-intellectual but faithful discussion of church issues

47. That said, I am of the camp who believes that Adam was justified in smacking those quasi-fundies down. I personally think that they represent a far-greater threat to Mormonism than all those lib Mormons out there in the ‘Nacle (of course, I may be biased).

    I’m not sure I’d agree that its a greater threat, but I think one advantage a fairly hidebound Mormon like me has is that the threats to the Kingdom from the ecclesiastical right seem more real to me.

48. To jump on Julie’s unintended threadjack and rebut Geoff’s point that there isn’t room for support for decriminalization of polygamy within the Church, it’s interesting to note that BYU Professor Fred Gedicks authored the petition for writ of certiorari for the polygamy appeal seeking to overturn Reynolds this past term (the request for cert was denied) (See here: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0227/p25s01-usju.html)

49. (I hope my threadjack didn’t too blatantly fly in the face of the real underlying purpose of this post)

Comments are closed.