Defining our Mormonism on Blogs

I may be the only blog in the Bloggernacle to react with consternation at Elder Ballard's recent injunction to blog!


Elder Ballard has asked BYUH students to "join the conversation by participating on the Internet, particularly the New Media, to share the gospel and to explain in simple and clear terms the message of the Restoration." His message makes me nervous. For some of you, whose blog messages share the gospel and speak in glowing terms of the message of the Restoration, this Apostle's approbation will be welcome. But I'm a bit concerned about his caveats. Elder Ballard says that "we cannot stand on the sidelines while others, including our critics, attempt to define what the Church teaches...We are living in a world saturated with all kinds of voices. Perhaps now, more than ever, we have a major responsibility as Latter-day Saints to define ourselves, instead of letting others define us."

These words bother me because they presuppose a blanket "definition of Mormons." As we have seen in our different conversations here on the Bloggernacle, there are so many ideologies and strains of thought common among faithful Latter-day Saints. And there are a myriad of others invested in the Church who have much to add to our conversation. Although my blog often deals in the ambiguities found within Mormonism, I have felt more authentic sharing these things here on my blog than I have ever felt within the Wards and Stakes of the Church. Here I am defining myself, here I learn what I really think and feel rather than what I am told to think and feel.

If my major responsibility is to define myself, instead of letting others define me, I feel I am doing a good job here on "Hieing to Kolob." I chose the name of my blog because it represents my striving to reach the throne of God, but always finding myself falling a bit short. Sometimes my thoughts seem to be on some other planet than the typical Mormon. I feel that I share commonalities, but never really fit in with conservative Mormons, liberal Mormons, fundamental Mormons, new order Mormons, or any other subset. But here I have found community. Mormons don't always fit into a neat categorization! I've had my share of those who call me to repentance, but also those who are accepting of my strivings.

Recently I was asked to censor some aspects of my blogging by a Church leader (Perhaps this experience is informing my unease). I very much appreciated the way it was done. The way the leader approached me was respectful and classy. I agreed to change some things because my blog had the potential to negatively affect other members of the Church. Had the consequences been limited to myself, I may have had a much harder time with the decision. I have come to value the things I have learned while blogging. I feel a great resistance against religious censorship on our blogs. The value of discovering the beauty of diversity and wrestling with worldviews here seems much greater than any negative result that could occur. Faith can only increase with examination and grappling with truth. It may seem to lead us away for a time, but in the end doubt is a valuable part of our human experience.

I understand the Church's need to be more visible on the internet. It is true that in the past webspace has been dominated by antiMormon perspectives. It is good to see the proliferation of more positive presentations of the Mormon experience. I hope that this is what Elder Ballard is trying to promote. It seems to me, however, that we are not so much being asked to define ourselves on our blogs, but to present a unified, sanitized version of Mormons.

In Which We Are Trained To Be Nice

I am appalled and concerned about the recent trend on the Bloggernacle to avoid controversy and to be nice at all costs. This went so far today as Times & Seasons taking down their post about the impropriety of the Marriott hotel chain being involved in questionable activities. On this chain, there were heated comments presenting both sides of an argument of concern to all of us as members and friends of the LDS Church. I realize that Times & Seasons strives to present a faithful aspect of Mormonism. In the past, I think they have done an admirable job of being balanced and fair while faithfully discussing issues of concern to LDS of a more intellectual bent. On occasion, they have found it necessary to delete comments, moderate the discussion, or close the comment forum down when they felt things were out of control. I think these actions are sometimes necessary in maintaining the tenor they would like to present at T&S. But in my opinion, deleting the entire thread is censorship akin to the type I have found unacceptable in the Mormon Church.

LDS members are trained to be nice at all costs. One will rarely find a satisfying intellectual discussion in any of our meetings, because we do not wish to tread on toes or cause waves. We will keep things inside of ourselves to the point of explosion, because we've been trained to be nice. Perhaps this is valuable in a ward setting. After all, we must closely associate with the members of a ward over an extended period of time. We must socialize with them, teach their children, work with them and attend meetings together.

But the Bloggernacle is an excellent forum for the expression of our true feelings. We can tell it like it is. We don't have to worry about official Church disapproval or repercussions. (at least so far...) We can discuss things that may not be welcome in our ward or even in our own homes. We are also able to participate at our comfort level. If the discussion gets too heated for our taste, we can be gone at the click of a mouse. The only thing we need to remember is that our position is only one view of the world. Others will have different ideas. These differing positions are not an indication of the faithfulness or unfaithfulness of any participant.

The blogger MCQ has opined: "At their most basic level, blog posts are expressions of ideas. The ideas are those of the poster originally, then those ideas are added to or modified by the subsequent comments. They become unique expressions, a preserved moment in time, and can never be perfectly duplicated once they are gone. These ideas deserve a spot in the marketplace, to stand or fall in the court of opinion. By their very nature they do not imply the endorsement of all who are permabloggers on a particular site, and anyone is free to voice their agreement or disagreement with them explicitly in the comments. Based on the above, there is no affirmative reason, in my mind, to ever delete them. Moreover, there is a grave danger in doing so. It is a disservice to all of us when deletions take place, because it robs us all of the opportunity to learn from the ideas that were expressed there."

I have always regretted actions of the Church which tend to censor or force members not to publish on their personal conjectures. I am more of the opinion of Gamaliel, when he says in the Book of Acts: "Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God." There were many things I did not agree with on the T&S thread. However, reading the discussion of the topic helped me form my own opinion. A more restrained restatement of the problem can be found at BCC (Sustaining Our Leaders, Sustaining One Another, by Mark Brown). But I found nothing wrong with the original post. That the discussion became heated and out of control is only an indication that the respondents possessed strong feelings on the subject. Such strong feelings should have a place to be expressed while feeling free to remain affiliated with the Church.

That is the value of the Bloggernacle to me. I can always attend my local ward when I am looking for niceness.