When I first became aware of the word Bloggernacle, I saw two words merged–blog and tabernacle, and in my mind’s eye, I envisioned church members using blogs to teach and discuss the gospel. I decided to see for myself and visited the Bloggernacle for the first time two years ago.
I was aware of a strong anti-mormon element on the internet and was looking forward to spending time with the saints in the Bloggernacle. I have to admit I wasn’t prepared for my first encounter with the Bloggernacle.
Before I continue I want to emphasize I’m not into criticism, observation and comment, yes. In this post I am going to relate a few of my observations and you can decide for yourself if they have merit or not.
Where’s the Beef
My first observation can be likened to a 1984 Wendy’s advertisement where several senior lady’s are looking at a hamburger. They lift the bun to inspect the rest of the hamburger and when they do it reveals a very small beef patty. One of the ladies with a gravelly voice says, “where’s the beef?!” The first thing I thought when I came to the Bloggernacle and looked a little closer at the most popular blogs was, “where’s the scriptures?”
I think this is an awfully good question. Why don’t those who post and comment in the most popular blogs use the scriptures more? It seems to me the scripture ought to have a place of honor where Latter-day Saints are gathered.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t expect to see scriptures used in every post and comment, but on the other hand, I believe there lack of use to near total absence in some blogs is something to be concerned about. I understand that we’re not at church when we’re in the Bloggernacle, and that one of the pleasures of blogging is to explore subjects that shouldn’t be brought up in church. But does that mean we should exclude the scriptures, words of the prophets, and testimony?
Disagreement vs. Antagonism
My second observation has to do with the basic virtue of kindness. I think most Latter-day Saints would agree that kindness is an important part of being a Mormon. I’ve personally found kindness to be in short supply when I have tied to introduce the first principles of the gospel into discussions in certain blogs. I have a difficult time understanding the mind set of those who become agitated when the scriptures, words of the prophets, and testimony are introduced into a discussion. What’s up?
There’s a difference between disagreeing and antagonism. I would think we can disagree without becoming an antagonist. It may be over used, but there is a saying that fits-we can disagree without being disagreeable. I think most of us would say this is a good goal to strive for, even though it’s hard to put into practice.
We can Do Better
One of the important purposes of the church is to help each baptized member acquire the gift of the Holy Ghost. With this gift we have access to a member of the Godhead. The Bloggernacle is part of this equation. The only question is how seriously do we take this responsibility. I think we can do better. I hope we will do better.
I want to make it clear, I am not trying to dig a set of spurs into anyone’s flanks, this is not my plan. My desire is to encourage each of us to “…stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death, that ye may be redeemed of God, and be numbered with those of the first resurrection, that ye may have eternal life.” Mosiah 18:9
When ‘naclers react with eyerolls to the introduction of scripture, it is usually because the one introducing the scriptures does it so badly. It almnost always comes across as a put-down, as calling other discussants to repentance, as promoting the scripture-citer as self-righteous and others as heathens.
It can also sometimes be completely out of place. My blog focuses on Mormon history. While scripture is seldom cited either by me or by commenters, testimony is very frequently offered — not always in the classic “I know the Church is true” format, but in ways that express admiration for the righteous actions recorded in a story, and unity and sympathy with the faithful Saints of the past.
Other times, though, we discuss cultural artifacts — advertisements found in old church magazines, funny old Primary songs, quaint illustrations. We laugh a lot, as if we were at a ward party. When someone chimes in with comments that try to turn the party into a testimony meeting, we react badly.
We also react badly when someone tries to explain doctrine to us in explanation of some episode of the past, as if we were not already familiar with the doctrine — in most cases, with far greater depth, evidently, than the one preaching at us.
To use your analogy, sometimes beef is just out of place. Maybe we’re eating a rootbeer float and don’t appreciate a greasy meat patty dropped on top of the ice cream.
Ardis–
Thanks for your comment. In my opinion, your explanation covers a very small percentage of the concern I bought up in my post. What about the rest? Where do you feel it is appropriate to use scriptures? Look at the major blogs, do you see any place where scripture could be used, but weren’t? Why?
I agree that the Bloggernacle concentrates a very low percentage of its focus on the scriptures. I think with the certain tools, this could change. I’m working on some personal projects that I hope will help.
Jared.
This may be ultra-critical, but too often most bloggers aren’t comfortable or familiar enough with the scriptures to use them. The more people read scriptures and try to apply it to their own lives, the more they can use those scriptures, if they choose to.
MadChemist, it may be ultra-critical, if by “ultra-critical” you mean “completely beyond my ability to know or righteously judge.”
According to Moroni 8, especially verses 24-26, when we are repentant we become filled with meekness and lowliness of heard. This condition then allows us to be blessed by the Holy Ghost and be filled with hope, charity, and perfect love.
We can all judge for ourselves whether the thoughts being expressed in the OP spring from meekness and lowliness of heart, and whether they are charitable or not.
I hope this use of the scriptures is sufficient.
What I almost always forget when I hope that someone is going to take my criticism to heart is the personal investment people have in the thing I’m criticizing. I try not to criticize the bloggernacle as a whole because I’m not really on the inside of it, and lack an emotional investment in it. If I were on the inside, I would see differently. My emotional investment is in something else. My wish that what I care about and routine bloggernacle proceedings share more common ground causes me some consternation, and when I speak out of that consternation I always do myself and others wrong.
That said, the primary reason you don’t see more use of the scriptures on the bloggernacle is that local’s explorations and exhibitions are not in any meaningful way informed by the scriptures. Mostly, they are informed by personal sensibility. ~
Most people don’t enjoy hearing scriptures that contradict their own position. All you can do is share the scriptures, and let the consequence follow. Nephi told us what the consequence would be. He said, “…the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center”.
It’s unrealistic to expect anything different.
“I have spoken the words of your Maker. I know that the words of truth are hard against all uncleanness; but the righteous fear them not, for they love the truth and are not shaken.” 2 Nephi 9:40
May we all have the courage, and strength, to hear those things which would benefit our eternal progression.
Thomas,Brent, have you considered the possibility that many bloggernacle participants simply assume the relevant scriptures to be the common foundation for discussion, and therefore think it seems unnecessarily pedantic to quote them? I know a fair number of bloggernacle regulars IRL, and it turns out that virtually all of them are serious students of the scriptures.
I can’t remember how many times I’ve cited a scripture in a blog post or comment–it’s not that many, but that’s not because I don’t know or love the scriptures, only that in many discussions it would seem like prooftexting or pedantry to trot out the scriptures that I presume everyone has in mind anyway. Perhaps you could try a more generous evaluation of your fellow Saints’ motives–maybe you’ve heard the one about motes and beams…
Jared asks “what about the rest?” — i.e., occasions where the discussion isn’t the light-hearted laughter at, say, quaint advertising, where scripture discussions are out of place.
“The rest” is covered by my first paragraph, which I repeat:
“When ‘naclers react with eyerolls to the introduction of scripture, it is usually because the one introducing the scriptures does it so badly. It almost always comes across as a put-down, as calling other discussants to repentance, as promoting the scripture-citer as self-righteous and others as heathens.”
I know at our blog (FRP), the scriptures are discussed regularly. Perhaps we don’t count as a “large blog”; but even so my sense is what you see at FPR isn’t necessarily what you have in mind. With that said, I’m curious to know what you mean by “use the scriptures more”?
Citation in general is something I don’t do much in general online. For any source. Perhaps it’s the inherent laziness the internet brings out in me and I suspect in others. I read something, I have a thought, I write my thoughts. For better or for worse (with plenty of instances of both). I don’t footnote my thoughts very often, and blogging to me is far more like thinking than it is like writing a research paper or book.
I would add, obviously not all blogging is as lazy as mine tends to be. Ardis’ Keepapitchinin site is one very good example of far more thoughtful work, I’m sure we can all think of many others. But I’d suggest most blogs, and *certainly* most commentary on blogs falls into that category. Hey look here, I’ll prove it, I’m not going to cite any proof for my claims! Well, ok, I’ll give one, this oldie bug goodie is absolute proof I’m right: http://www.novelr.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/duty_calls_1.png
Kristine,
If the scriptures support what you are saying, then what’s the problem? Why not take comfort that God see things the same as you? Why get upset about it?
One of the observations that Jared made was this, “I have a difficult time understanding the mind set of those who become agitated when the scriptures, words of the prophets, and testimony are introduced into a discussion. What’s up?”
Kristine, are you suggesting that people get agitated because the posted scripture redundantly supports their position?
Ardis,
Sometimes the scriptures speak for themselves. If one interprets the scripture as a being a put-down, or as a call to repentance, then one must ask why they would feel that way.
Kristine,
No I don’t really consider that to be valid defense. People may well understand and have in their consciousness scriptures while making their points. But the proof is in the pudding. Out of the abundance of the intellect, as well as the heart, the mouth speaks or the fingers type. If we have in our consciousness the language of the scriptures, that language will naturally manifest itself. If we are not substantially informed or suffused with that language, then not so much.
And, in any case, the very fact that your first reaction to having a scripture quoted is that it is pedantic, rather than a natural part of discussion goes right to the problem. What was that about motes and beams? ~
This is turning out to be an informative discussion on an important subject.
If someone contributes a comment to a post and others are tempted to “roll their eyes” because it was badly introduced, what should the annoyed discussants do? I would suggest finding out what’s on the commenter’s mind. Is he/she sincere? If so, then it can turn into a teaching/leaning experience. You never know when you will come across a “Susan Boyle/Paul Potts” personality.
Thank to all who have commented. Keep your ideas coming.
Thomas, please. This post starts off with a complaint, right in the title. This was a straight up middle finger to the rest of the bloggernacle, not an attempt a dialogue, and it certainly isn’t an honest attempt at understanding. The poster wants to get in a few quick punches below the belt, convince people of their urgent need to repent (and notice, he knows just how we should do it, too) and then pretend that it is all just some innocent musing. You are a wise enough man to know that.
The backstory here is that Jared offered some unsolicited advice to another blogger which amounted to saying that the reason you are experiencing problems is beecause you are insufficiently righteous. He was compared to Job’s comforters, and then he got huffy, saying gee whiz, can’t a guy even call a stranger to repentance if he uses the scriptures?
Mark–
When you try to read minds it usually turns out badly. How do you know what is in my mind and heart? You’re welcome to you’re opinion, but you’re flat wrong about what’s going on in my soul. I’ve been in the Bloggernacle for nearly two years, I believe my track record will stand review.
There have been no middle finger gestures on my part. Never crossed my mind. You brought the subject of middle fingers to the discussion.
If you go to the “Categories” section of this blog and click “Precepts of Men”, and read “About” you’ll get a better idea of what I am trying to contribute to the Bloggernacle.
Mark, do you have blog? If you do, please post the link.
Mark,
Whatever Jared’s intentions, I think his criticism and complaint is valid enough and warrants a close look.
Two things caught me when I first came to the bloggernacle*:
1. No one used the scriptures as a touchstone with which to measure their opinions, and
2. No one talks about the devil (except to diminish his significance).
I’m not, probably, as disheartened by this as Jared. I still think that fine, worthwhile things happen roundabouts, and that many participants are expressing themselves in perfectly good faith. There are some things that I find very frustrating – but, like I said, if I was in the heart of the thing, no doubt I’d have a different perspective.
The only things I know about Jared is that he seems to have a pretty good grasp of gospel basics and says things that get people’s hackles standing. Both of which seem to me reasons, especially running together, to pay attention and not be dismissive.
There is actually another thing I slowly came to notice. I don’t know why it surprised me, but it did. At least a little. There is a cast of characters, a hierarchy of personalities, and it does matter where you stand in relation to those folks if you want to be heard – depending on the site. I recognized this, having myself once been a figurehead of menace on a long standing very active Usenet group. Having actually gone through some real heartache having to do with my ego and what happens when those who flatter you later turn against you – and also having seen a great deal of the damage this kind of online dynamic can do to some more tenderhearted, I basically have consciously and unconsciously shied away from any kind of emotional commitment to the whole shebang. The reason I bring this up is that I note among said personalities a tendency to be dismissive of certain kinds of criticism and to close ranks against the sources of that criticism.
You know – you can’t say this about us – we’re the good guys, after all. Well, you can say it, and it is true. Speaking broadly, very little of the opinion expressed on Mormon blogs openly touches scripture, and to whatever extent it is informed or modified by scripture study that is not expressed – possible because to do so opens you to suspicion that you are pedantic. My guess is that it is more to do with the fact the we don’t actually use the scriptures much to inform or modify our opinions.
* by bloggernacle I mean the top seven or eight sites. I know that locally you can find a great variety. Clean Cut, for instance, is a well respected blogger who frequently uses scriptures.
~
Thomas, I didn’t realize a “valid defense” was needed–I thought I was offering an explanation to someone who was curious.
There’s absolutely no way for you to know how much or how well someone studies the scriptures from the way they speak in an online forum. Sensitive and intelligent participants in a conversation will tend to adapt their expression to the form that is common in the forum where they’re participating. In Sacrament Meeting, and in the Sunday School class I teach, I’m sure you would approve of the scriptural language quotient of my speech–in those contexts, it’s appropriate. In online discussions, where people are a little more reserved with their spiritual experiences (properly so, I think), the language is likely to skew towards a cooler, more secular vocabulary.
In short, again, I think you are in very, very dangerous territory if you start making judgments about people’s spirituality based on how they express themselves on blogs. And you shouldn’t be terribly surprised if they feel resentful of being thus judged, regardless of the purity of your motives or the scripture-tinged tone of your calls to repentance.
Jared,
When you try to read minds it usually turns out badly.
Yes, it certainly does, doesn’t it. You complained and criticized, to used Thomas’s words. I don’t know how else you expect anybody to read this. You know nothing about me, yet you think that because I don’t express myself in the manner you expect, I am deficient.
You took a look at the bloggernacle and and found it wanting. (By the way, that’s a scriptural reference.) And whether it was your intention to judge is immaterial, because your commenters have jumped on the bandwagon you are driving and assure us that bloggernacle participants don’t really know the scriptures so they can’t really apply them to themselves. There really is a lot of unintentional humor and irony when somebody uses a citation about likening the scriptures to ourselves and applies it to others.
Yes, I do blog. You can find my lastest post at bycommonconsent dot com, I just posted it last night. I doubt that you will like it, since it doesn’t contain an scripture references.
Thomas,
I’ve actually had a post rattling around in my head for about a year now about why discussions about scripture passages are so unproductive. (By the way, it isn’t just the bloggernacle; think of 80% of the Sunday school classes you have attended.) I haven’t thought it through well enough to come to any definitive conclusions, but this is what I think right now. Especially among LDS with our respect for personal revelation, the same passage means different things to different people. I have no problem with that, in fact I think it is great. God speaks to us in ways we are prepared to understand, not just to the church collectively, but to individuals as well.
Fast meetings are some of our best meetings, and Sunday schools are some of our worst. The difference is that in FM, nobody discusses or evaluates the speaker’s experiences. We accept it as stated and are grateful that another saint has found a way to get through the month. In Sunday school, we often have discussion FAIL precisely because people react to the witness of others. In fast meeting sister X can say that Ezekiel 14:8 helps her be more charitable and we love her for it. If she says that an hour later in SS, we can’t wait to point out to her that she is doing it wrong and that her interpretation isn’t in the manual.
I have concluded that discussions centered around the scriptures work among close friends and married couples, but tend to break down the wider the net is thrown. Blogging about the way we understand scripture is an open invitation for uncharitable people to liken the scriptures to others rathen than to themselves, as we have seen in the comments on this thread already. I do think that these discussions are being done successfully at feastupontheword and faithpromotingrumor. They both rank in my top 5 favorite blogs. But those blogs are exceptions which prove the rule.
As to your observations on the nature of blogging in general, I agree. But how is this different from any other kind of human interaction? We observe the same thing at church, in the neighborhood, and anywhere else where two or more are gathered. (2nd scriptural reference! ka-ching!) A guy walking into priesthood meeting waving his hands and informing the group that they were doing it wrong would get about the same reaction that I gave Jared. Blogging is a social endeavor so it will follow the patterns which apply to other social endeavors, don’cha think?
I try to make an effort to include and welcome n00bs. I wish I did it better.
My experience has been that most “heirarchies of personality” in the bloggernacle are most unwelcoming. No matter the comment made, one of the personalities is bound to feel you are “making judgments about people’s spirituality based on how they express themselves on blogs” regardless of wether the commenter has quoted scripture or not. And once it hits that point forget about an open discussion. It seems to me that ou must first establish yourself to be as “open minded” as the heirarchy before you can disagree or discuss and be taken seriously.
I’m still curious to know what you mean by “use the scriptures more”?
I’m guessing that you do not necessarily mean “start threads that ask how certain scriptures should be interpreted”; although I imagine you are not opposed to this.
Rather, I’m thinking you mean “refer to scriptures in order to substantiate an argument”. Taking this to be the case, there may be several reasons why people do not “use the scriptures” (some of which have already been mentioned):
1) They do not know them well enough.
2) They do not want to take the time to look up the citation and quote it verbatim.
3) They see blogging as closely related to a casual conversation, in which one rarely needs to provide citations.
4) Those they are talking to already take the scriptures as authoritative and citing them would be redundant.
5) Those they are talking to do not necessarily take the scriptures as authoritative, in which case citing them is not persuasive.
I’m sure this list is not exhaustive; and some of the items on the list are better reasons than others. I suppose we would agree that there are many circumstances in which at least some of the items on this list are “valid” reasons for not using scriptures; and being “charitable” in dialoging with others should probably assume the most valid reason for the circumstance before judging otherwise (which “otherwise” would then lead to a “call to repentance”).
IMO most of us all too often fall into category (1). We don’t really know the scriptures well enough. We tend to take them out of context, presume that the meaning is obvious, and apply them to cases in which they were not meant to be applied. All too often “using scriptures” without knowing them well enough can be a convenient smoke screen for not “studying it out in your mind” (D&C 9:8); and therefore a rhetorical device meant to employ Nephi, Joseph Smith, or whoever else we may be quoting for the purpose of leveraging their authority to make our argument seem right, rather than recognizing the complexities involved.
“It seems to me that ou must first establish yourself to be as “open minded” as the heirarchy before you can disagree or discuss and be taken seriously.”
I’m not sure I agree about hierarchies of personality–I’ve been around a long time, and I couldn’t tell you who the hierarchs might be–but I do think there’s a certain degree of openness required, or at least a willingness to tolerate a style of discussion that is more open than what can be countenanced in Sunday School or RS, and maybe even a little more combative than your average Elders’ Quorum lesson. That is uncomfortable for many newbies, and if they express their discomfort in a way that calls the legitimacy of the discussion into question, they do tend to get shouted down.
Is that what you’re describing, alwaysanewbie, or is there a different dynamic you see?
Kristine,
I am not judging any individual’s spirituality, rather I’m asking why a collection of blogs whose expressed purpose is to explore Mormon thought contains so few references – even oblique references – to Mormon scripture. I’d truly have thought that it would be a common occurrence, and it isn’t. You can go several long, interesting threads without seeing a single quote. I’m drawing some general conclusions to what I see as a general problem. As to someone feeling judged, if the shoe fits wear it or not. We’re all agents to ourselves. I frankly don’t give a rat’s behind whether this or that individual reads, studies, ignores or burns his scriptures. But it does bother me that we can’t even directly quote them on most of the major blogs without seeming “pedantic” or that we are pointing fingers or who knows what else. It is one of a number of things that trouble me about the major blogs, and one that I will probably criticize again.
You seem to me an _exceptionally_ literate, bright, balanced and sensitive person. In real life, you are a person whose friendship I would value very very much. But you have an emotional connection to the bloggernacle – and more power to you, many of the talking heads are personal friends of yours, surely – and that seems to keep you from being able to take many kinds of criticism of the bncle other than personally. ~
Mark,
I’m not sure I agree about SS over FM. I’d have to think about it.
I agree that interactions online are not different in kind from meat life interactions; but, for whatever reasons, there is a difference in degree when it comes to some negative human interactions. Being one of the cool kids is one of those phenomenon that is highlighted.
~
Thomas,
How can saying that the denizens of the bloggernacle (which includes me) don’t know the scriptures or think about them be taken _other_ than as a personal criticism?
And thanks for the psychoanalysis.
SmallAxe–
Thanks for your participation with thoughtful comments. You asked a question early on, and then repeated it again so let me give my answer. You said: I’m still curious to know what you mean by “use the scriptures more”?
Latter-day Saints are commanded to fulfill their baptism covenant and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Using the scriptures is an integral part of this process.
Mark Brown–
The content of our “heart” is the seat of our actions. In other words, For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he… Proverbs 23:7.
When I wrote this post, in my heart, the seat of my actions, I felt concern for those who make up the Bloggernacle. All those who post, comment, and visit are influenced by what goes on here.
I feel it’s important to encourage the use of scriptures in the Bloggernacle. I am using what powers of persuasion I have to foster there use. I even attempted humor to make my post more attractive. I am not trying to put anyone down.
Words are the best means of communication we have, but they are subject to error on many levels. Wouldn’t it be great if we could discern the content of one’s heart in addition to his words?
Thomas Parkin & Kristine–
You have a very interesting exchange in progress. I would like to clarify my thoughts that are indirectly related.
Like you, I like the wild west aspect of the Bloggernacle. There are many wide ranging subjects to post and comment on.
However, I feel it is particularly important for LDS to use the scriptures, words of the prophets, and testimony when the subject matter relates to the first principles of the gospel.
Tomas–You brought up the subject of the adversary not being discussed in the Bloggernacle. I think that is an interesting observation. If you’re inclined to elaborate on this, I’d like to know more of your take on this.
Kristine,
Because it is a general remark. When I called Kevin Barney on the mat for reading a book during someone’s talk, that was personal. I think there is a general lack of scripture use, and I think it is generally because we do not regard the scriptures highly enough, or regarding them highly enough do not make enough use of them, or making enough use of them do not use them openly enough in discussions about LDS matters.
This seems so obvious to me it’s like a truism.
etc. etc. etc.
And, you’re welcome for the psychoanalysis. The doctor is in. 5 cents.
Jared,
I think there isn’t much discussion about the devil on the bloggernacle because most nacclers think are smarter than the devil. *snicker* *runs away* ~
Thomas, the check is in the mail
A general statement would be: “It’s interesting that the mode of discourse on Mormon blogs generally does not include scripture citation.”
However, exhorting us to do better, and declaring that not quoting scriptures is a failure to meet our baptismal covenant is a personal criticism, even if it’s leveled at a large group of persons.
Latter-day Saints are commanded to fulfill their baptism covenant and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Using the scriptures is an integral part of this process.
This still doesn’t provide an answer of what it means to “use the scriptures”. I elaborated on two possible options above. Those are answers in the sense that they provide clear direction of at least how one could begin (or continue) the process of “using the scriptures”. In your response you basically stated that “using the scriptures” is a part of fulfilling one’s baptismal covenant. That, however, does not tell us anything about what “using the scriptures means”.
Kristine–
I’ve enjoyed your thoughts–thanks.
Encouragement and persuasion necessarily include a message of improvement. If we label it criticism this can be taken to mean the giver is being condescending an arrogant. If we call it teaching, then to those who are teachable, it is taken to mean sharing of knowledge.
It’s what is in the heart of the giver that really counts, and then it is up to the receiver to interpret how they see it. Not everyone is teachable.
The scripture teach that when we’re converted we need to be concerned about others.
…when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren
(New Testament | Luke 22:32)
SmallAxe–
Look at Kristine’s comment, the one just prior to your last. I used the scriptures to address her comment. This is what I have in mind when I refer to “using the scripture”.
Using the scripture properly, creates understanding from the perspective of the Lord’s prophet–his spokesmen.
But it does bother me that we can’t even directly quote them on most of the major blogs without seeming “pedantic” or that we are pointing fingers or who knows what else. It is one of a number of things that trouble me about the major blogs, and one that I will probably criticize again.
Thomas, I’d propose the following rule: any one that uses a scripture to substantiate an argument, make a point, etc. on the “major blogs”, MUST also provide an argument as to why that scripture is applicable in that context.
Using the scripture properly, creates understanding from the perspective of the Lord’s prophet–his spokesmen.
Jared, thank you for responding my comments. I think we should also be aware that this claim you make entails a notion that whomever is employing scripture stands in relation to the prophet (i.e., the person being quoted). While it may be a quote that comes from Mormon, for instance, the quoter’s name is also attached to it; and they act as a conduit to assert the applicability of the passage to the new context. They make that claim that they have discovered the meaning of the passage and that this meaning holds in a new situation. In some cases this is less problematic than others; but generally I tend to be very careful about the way in which I use scripture, for these reasons.
SmallAxe–
I agree, wholeheartedly.
the reasons you stated in your posts…the contention…the antagonism…etc…is the reason i stay away from mormoms online…
sharon–
Wow, I know what you’re saying. Sometimes I restrict my reading to just the post. And maybe to a few of the commenters.
But Jared, what makes you think I need encouragement or persuasion? Doesn’t that suggest a judgment that your wisdom and understanding are superior to mine?
“When thou with rebukes dost correct man for iniquity, thou makest his beauty to consume away like a moth”
Psalm 39: 11
I take that to mean that when we’re intent on making sure others know what we know, or what we think they should know, that we will miss seeing the beauty and wisdom that inhere in their perception. Of course there are times that we need to correct someone, or when we can offer our own experience,but even in person, even in our own wards and our own families with those we know and love best, it’s a tricky business to “reprove betimes with sharpness.” It’s so painfully easy to hurt rather than help–like trying to move a butterfly to what looks like a better spot and thereby irreparably damaging its wings. Setting oneself up as a teacher to people you don’t know seems particularly risky–better to try to see the fleeting beauty in the moths’ wings.
Kristine–
From my frame of reference I see the Lord teaching us that we need to “warn” our neighbor (D&C 123:12-15) Those who are ready to hear the gospel, whether member or nonmember, will be drawn to it. Others will not.
I like the saying, “when the student is ready, the teacher will appear”. I am working on the belief that because of my experiences with things of the Spirit, I am required to do what is in my power to appropriately testify to others (D&C 84:61).
I worry that I am clumsy at times, but I learn as I go. I don’t know of a way to hurt anyone by what I am doing. They may be mad, offended, and whatever else, but not hurt in any important way. Those who are benefited, benefit immensely. So from an investment point of view, it worth the time and energy and occasional tongue lashing received.
…be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
(New Testament | Matthew 10:16)
The key is “appropriately.” If you’re offending people, you might want to check on the appropriateness of your witness for the forum. Then again, if you’re looking for “blessed are all who are persecuted for my name’s sake,” maybe you can feel really good about going around riling people up so they’ll persecute you.
Kristine–
LOL–I’m not into riling people up and persecution. But an exchange of ideas like we’ve had here is worthwhile. I feel like I’ve learned and imparted some worthwhile things. I hope others feel the same way.
You come across as a terrific person and I feel that way about everyone in the Bloggernacle. I haven’t come across anyone in the Bloggernacle that I wouldn’t call a brother or sister in the gospel. I’m not mad at anyone. I have a wish list of things I’d like to see change, but all in all, I think there is much good here, but I feel we can do even better.
“You come across as a terrific person”
You’re just saying that because I’ve included scriptural quotations in every comment on this thread
not to ruffle feathers but these exact—how dare you question my judgment or my intellect–responses…are total turnoffs for me…and for that reason i’ll stay away from blogs run by mormons…although I consider myself a solid latter day saint..
I think a significant portion of the answer to you question is provided by Joseph Smith. “The teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.”
Have you ever heard another Christian make a claim that you believe, as a Mormon, is inaccurate? Didn’t they usually accompany that claim by saying, “I’m only telling you what’s in the Bible.”
Frequently, when people share a scripture in an online forum, it doesn’t allow for any more nuance than that all-knowing bible thump which ignores the very real possibility that we are understanding the same scriptures differently.
I’m not arguing that fewer scripture citations are better. I, like you, wish that we could have better gospel conversations online. It just seems that there are practical limitations when large groups of strangers are conversing.
Full agreement with Bradley. I’m a big fan of both Thomas Aquinas and LeGrand Richards, however in reading “Summa Theologica” and “A Marvelous Work and a Wonder” I found that occasionally I would completely disagree with the author’s use of a scripture to prove a particular point (eg., I completely disagree that the “hunters and fishers” of Jeremiah are meant, by Jeremiah, to represent missionaries in the last days but are, rather, the inescapable wrath of God in the form of the invading Babylonians – perhaps the latter-day prophecy is valid, but I’d argue that in that case Jeremiah didn’t even know it was being made when he wrote the words down). And that’s the biggest problem with using scriptures in a logical argument. If I had the opportunity to discuss my issues with Aquinas or Elder Richards we’d probably start getting into discussions about context, history, and culture – NOT scripture. Scripture is a great jumping off point for a discussion, but they are not a good way to keep a *discussion* going since all scriptures are interpreted individually. Even as a missionary I found that in discussions if the person we were talking to knew much about the Bible we often would be in disagreement about the meaning of a particular scripture and we would have to go to a modern-day scripture or testimony where the investigator had no personal interpretation. Scriptures are great to keep a talk in Church going well, but not good for a discussion among different people.
Whew, perhaps I should have hit “Enter” once or twice. That is one big block of text…
Bradley and NoCoolName Tom–
Good thoughts. I agree with you with following remarks:
I’ve found that the solution to the problem of scriptural understanding comes by the Spirit. Now I know some people will role their eyes at this explanation, but that is the only way LDS can come to unity of faith. Experience teaches powerfully what Joseph Smith said as, quoted by Bradley above, is true. This is demonstrated by the presence 1000+ Christian churches based on the Bible.
LDS have apostles and prophets, the are responsible to keep the doctrine of the church “pure”. Additionally, LDS are promised the gift of the Holy Ghost, if we”ll diligently seek for it. Therein lies the problem and solution: how many are really hungering and thirsting for the gift of the Holy Ghost?
I feel we need to focus on the Doctrine of Christ and earnestly seek to fulfill our baptismal covenant and acquire the gift of the Holy Ghost. With it we have everything, and without it, we are just members of another church.
Do the whisperings of the Holy Ghost when translated into public expression always have to include scriptural citation? Or even have to include it the majority of the time when using the medium of blogging?
Pingback: Who do we want to keep in the church? « Irresistible (Dis)Grace
Wm Morris–
As I tried to point out in my post, my emphasis on using scriptures in the Bloggernacle is fueled by there glaring lack of use. I’m not advocating going to the other extreme.
Andrew S.–
When I read the first few words of your comment (Who do we want to keep in the church?) I thought you were referring to a pet of some kind. Then I realized you had me in mind.
Then when I read your post, I felt like a dangerous man when you said: “…stay out of his path.”
I guess I’m not on your list of favorite Bloggernacle personalities. What can I say more?
Update: Andrew, I read part of your blog and would like you to know I don’t believe in atheist. By the way, you appear to be a talented writer. What got you interested in accounting?
Hi Jared,
I am trying to take your advice to include more scripture in my blog posts.
check it out.
Hi MadChemist–
I hope it works out for the best.
The link for “check it out” isn’t working.
It is more crucial to listen to what has actually been said in a post. More often than not, there is some hidden communication going on – (or not going on) – misunderstandings can arise with greater rapidity when typed in short staccato blurbs here and there rather than in a face to face verbal conversation where tone of voice, demeanor, inflection, and such make all the difference between a jovial interchange, and a situation where mistrust and paranoia can flourish. Personal interaction can quickly clear up a perceived difference, but in the quick soundbite blogging world, things can spiral out of control with the tap of a key.
Mike–
Thanks for your comment regarding what happened on Ardis’s blog last night. Your words really hit home and have great meaning to me.
Interesting as I probe some of the comments made here. I am not sure of the meaning that people choose to give the word scripture. To me, scripture isn’t merely words, or notable quotes. Scripture doesn’t even have to be written down, to be scripture. Nor does the full import of scripture necessarily need to be known at the time one speaks it. Scripture as I have learned it to mean, is what is inspired by the Holy Ghost and is the word of God, the will of God, the mind of God. In that light, when would it (scripture) not be appropriate to represent or illuminate a logical discussion point? Except in cases where the spirit of contention is manifest, which means the Holy Ghost may depart from you and leave you in your own logic.