Stop the Bloggernacle

0 Flares Twitter 0 Facebook 0 Google+ 0 StumbleUpon 0 Email -- Filament.io 0 Flares ×

Or to counter Rusty, what if President Hinckley says this next month?

?¢‚Ǩ¬¶brothers and sisters, there is another matter of which I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢d like to mention before we close this glorious conference. We live in a new age. A time where information surrounds us. The internet has grown to be a regular part of many people?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s lives. Email makes it easier to communicate?¢‚Ǩ¬¶ but I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢m not going to give you my email address (crowd erupts with laughter). Like all other forms of media the internet can be used for both good and evil. Pornography is the great plague of our times, it enslaves those caught in it?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s web of deceit and pain.

But this free flow of information has also provided opportunities for us to learn and grow. The Church has many websites devoted to helping us grow our testimonies of Jesus Christ and becoming better people. You may also know that the Church publications are available online for the growing internet populous. You can find these through lds.org and mormon.org.

However, the Internet has also been the source of much hurt, deceit and unorthodoxy in recent years. Many of you in attendance today are probably familiar with the idea that former members of our Church have created websites that hurt the Church and present falsehoods. Even less threatening but still a concern are active members of the Church who criticise Church leaders and the practices and doctrines of the Church. Commonly known as the Bloggernacle, this loosely connected collection of blogs is a detriment to the spiritual growth of our members and several have left the Church as a result

We are thus stating now that no member in good standing should participate, let alone organize, such websites. We strongly discourage the practise of blogging to criticise church leadership, doctrine and practices.

Would the Bloggernacle stop?

19 thoughts on “Stop the Bloggernacle

  1. Kim, if your description of us as people who routinely “criticise Church leaders and the practices and doctrines of the Church” is correct, then obviously a statement by a church leader would make no difference.

  2. Are you serious? Has adultery stopped? Has fornication stopped? Has child abuse stopped? What makes you think an activity will come to a complete stop among all members of the Church when the Prophet tells people not to do it?

  3. It might drive us all to use Nacle handles for safety. A few might feel push to join the antis; probably about the same number who would comply. If they made it a recommend question, that would probably be the end of my membership. Not easy to fudge like the G’s question.

  4. RT, I’m not sayign that’s how I view people in the nacle. I was trying to state what orthodox members might say in such a statement.

    ltbugaf, I didn’t say I thought it would stop. I was asking if others thought it would.

  5. I would stop blogging about Church issues (though I would keep commenting on current events, politics, and the law, which was why I started blogging in the first place).

    So I guess my participation in the “bloggernacle” as such would stop. I am not sure that all participation would cease, however.

  6. “ltbugaf, I didn’t say I thought it would stop. I was asking if others thought it would.”

    Yes, and I answered. So what’s wrong? Did I miss something?

    When I asked whether you were serious, I was simply asking whether you were serious in posing the question, since the answer is so glaringly obvious.

  7. Upon rereading, I understand. I should have said, “How could anyone think an activity will come to a complete stop…”

  8. Steve: Trying to understand why lying in response to this question would be more difficult than lying in response to the existing questions.

  9. Of course it wouldn’t stop and all of those church members who go there frequently would find a way to justify still going there. I mean, look at the R rated movei debate…etc…LOL

    K.

  10. Would it stop? No. Would it be significantly diminished? Yes.

    On the other hand, many of us who participate don’t cricitize the church leadership nor the doctrine, and the practices we criticize are those that belong to church culture rather than come directly out of its theology.

    So for me, at least, I can’t see that I’d be inclined to do much that’s different than what I’m doing now. There’d just be fewer (or less active) places to do it.

    What would happen, though, is that there’d be plenty of Pharisees among us, criticizing and judging the rest of us.

    And don’t get me started on the R-rated movie debate.

  11. It would be bad, if you ask me, if he were moved upon to say that. I worry, though, about such a pronouncement. It would only silence the voices of the faithful, and leave the rest to lead, comfort, and guide each other further astray.

  12. This better not happen. I’m still dealing with the news that Bunko is now a no-no. Guess I’d better take up knitting or something.

  13. Sue, I must have missed the General Conference announcement about Bunko. Or was that about gambling in general?

  14. The 1st counselor in our bishopric said they are reading a letter over the pulpit next Sunday about Bunko. My understanding was that it is from the 1st Presidency. I guess we will know next Sunday!

  15. What the heck is Bunko? I have no clue what you are talking about.

    I also fervently believe that the voices of the faithful could never be silenced simply by a statement from the First Presidency about whatever it is about. I just hope that the whiners and moaners would shut up once in a while due to such pronouncements…I know I know…wishful thinking.

    K.

  16. Kris, #17 has me really confused. How do you define “the faithful”? Those who won’t do what the Prophet asks them to do?

  17. I really enjoyed ltbugaf’s comment on number 3#. Very well put.
    Is our faith in the Prophet strong enough for us to obey if he said that? Would we be among those who have blind obedience or Strong Faith?

Leave a Reply