I sometimes wish I were an attorney and had more time to blog. Sadly, my employer expects me to work and my wife wants me to be a husband and father when I get home. Hence, my sporadic blogging and even more sporadic commenting.

Rule #1 – The Internet is not private. In fact, it is as non-private as you can get. It’s easy to forget this, since you are usually posting in the privacy of your own home.

Rule #2 – That which is posted on the Internet is (potentially) forever. It’s also easy to forget that if your post hits the right people in the right way, your words could be splattered across the ‘net in ways that can never be erased. I learned long ago not to write anything I didn’t want known in the general public – that creed is even more true in Internet settings. I’ve been known to forget this and the previous rule, and I should know better. I’ve been on the internet for years and years.

Rule #3 – You can’t control who will read your blog. This goes hand in hand with Rule #2, but I think it’s important enough to be its own rule. Even if you target members, your words are set in stone for everyone, from believing members to the most convinced antis. You can’t control or even divert the flow once it starts.

Rule #4 – We as members have more at stake than the average blogger. Mormonism has always been and will probably always be under intense scrutiny. Our church being what it is, we have few to no full-time representatives. We ARE the full-time representatives. We ARE the PR people. If we use the Internet as our source to vent, our brief struggle with one or two points of doctrine can easily become front-line news.

Rule #5 – Your words are now public domain. One thing I found interesting a little while ago is the “proof” that polygamy was bad based on some journal entries of multiple wives of the time. I don’t know about you, but I have (had) a strong propensity to vent in my journal. It is not a good representation of how I truly feel. If you use the internet to vent, you will be painting an inaccurate picture of yourself for all the world to see. Even if you present a balanced viewpoint in your blog, it is easy for someone with an agenda to quote only the parts that apply to them.

Rule #6 – You might be wrong. That’s particularly important for anyone discussing something as complicated and personal as religion. Even if you’re right for you, you might be wrong for someone else, but most of all, your perspective on doctrine might be in error.

Rule #7 – People live behind the words. You’re talking to real people. Real people ought to receive kindness, particularly from a Christian. We’ve been asked to return kindness for scorn. Few places test our ability to do so more than the Internet.

I’m sure there are more things to think about when posting. These are just a few half-baked thoughts. I don’t want to take up any more of your space with them.

I find myself particularly considering these words of Elder Ballard:

“Discussions focused on questioning, debating and doubting gospel principles do little to build the kingdom of God.”

Some of what happens in the bloggernacle is along these lines of questioning, doubting and debating. We should all be aware of the reality that not every voice in this sphere will actually be a voice that would be consistent with what Elder Ballard has encouraged. That doesn’t condemn the whole sphere, either, but I don’t think J. Max intended to do that.

BUT there is stuff that is just plain uplifting, too. These uplifting kinds of posts are part of the reason I like blogging.

The challenge for the ‘nacle, as a whole and as individuals, if we want to be what Elder Ballard has plead for, is more consistent positive, supportive, uplifting stuff. And much, much less contention and negativity. I think it’s important for readers unfamiliar to Mormonism to understand that the bloggernacle does not always accurately represent our doctrine and teachings. It doesn’t always shed a positive light on the church. That doesn’t mean the whole bloggernacle is useless, but we shouldn’t deny this reality.

I think the key of this post is not to think that all blogging is created equal, and I doubt any of us would disagree. I also don’t know that there is a pat answer to what would constitute ‘good blogging’ according to this talk. There is a specific purpose he is addressing, and it doesn’t involve questioning the church or gospel principles. It doesn’t involve contention. I hear him asking us to be unequivocally supportive and positive (“Our position is solid; the Church is true.”) I also see him directly addressing blogging that is focused on non-members as the audience and addressing misconceptions or misperceptions. As Richard said above, most of the bloggernacle posting is directed toward members and discussion among members. There can be good there, too, but I don’t think that is as much of what Elder Ballard is specifically asking us to do.

And yet, I am sure non-members read the bloggernacle. So, to me, again, I think this is an important talk for us to think about as those who participate in the ‘nacle, whether via posting on our blogs or (and/or) commenting in discussions. I hope that we can see more material and conversation that would be worthy of Elder Ballard’s approval. Whether we want to be or not, we are representing the Church, and the tone and content of our posts and discussions can have an effect on other people and on the work. This is sobering to me, and something easy to forget in this world of instant communication.

BTW, I’m really disappointed to hear that J has been threatened with delisting on the MA, by the way. If any of the MA powers are reading, I sincerely hope that this doesn’t happen. I’m puzzled as to why such a decision would even be considered, let alone vocalized.

I appreciate your caveat lector and hope that all who read will carefully consider your words and, especially, the words of the apostles you quote as we “go forth and blog.” Thanks for the reminders!

Just to be paranoid about possible misunderstandings, I hope it is clear to everyone that although I hang out with Geoff J, I have ZERO visibility into the workings of the MA cabal (I use the term affectionately). I don’t want anyone to mistake my comment above as being related in any way to the threat of de-listing. The first I heard of it is in your comment, J.

Connor: Yes, it is really cool that Bookslinger’s blog was specifically quoted. He has been a great example to all of us.

Richard: Yes, there does seem to be a huge lack of emphasis on writing that is accessible to both those who are not members of the church and those who are new and uninitiated.

Dave: Good point. Corrected in post.

Michelle: Thanks. And you are right, there is much to go and do!

SilverRain: Thanks for sharing your experience. I wish there were an easy answer, but I don’t think that there is. the best we can do is try to follow the spirit to be directed toward those conversations where we can make a difference and touch hearts. I remember the experience of Wilford Woodruff preaching the gospel in England. He was having a good deal of success in one area when suddenly the spirit told him to leave and go preach elsewhere. He did so and was blessed with even greater success. We should let the spirit guide us to where our energy is best spent. For some people that may be the bloggernacle…but for others of us, it is not.

Daniel: Thanks. I have always appreciated your dedication to the gospel.

Jacob: It is true. I have not actively engaged the bloggernacle community, but I have backed away from my initial disassociation to some degree. When I requested to be added to LDSblogs.org I explicitly indicated that I would not be participating in the community but that i was interested in being listed on the aggregator. They were already aggregating a few blogs, like LDSWebGuy, who were not part of the bloggernacle community, but posted on LDS topics and I asked if I could be added as one such blog.

Incidentally, I have already been threatened with being de-listed from LDSblogs.org as a result of this post.

Good observations about Sunday School.

I agree that it is quite obvious that Elder Ballard is not giving a blanket endorsement of the bloggernacle, but it is worth noting that the lds.org newsroom has linked to blogs before, and not just ones sharing a testimony. Michelle, in particular, is almost constantly sharing a faithful perspective on posts that are controversial. Doesn’t that obviously fall under the behavior Elder Ballard is endorsing? But that was done in the bloggernacle, which means that at least some of what goes on in the bloggernacle was endorsed. Wouldn’t you agree? When it comes down to it, I can’t even endorse everything that goes on in Sunday School, so it is not surprising I can’t endorse everything in the bloggernacle. And lest anyone get bent out of shape over that last sentence, Elder Oaks can’t endorse everything in Sunday School either. As he said in general conference:

However, I have sometimes observed teachers who gave the designated chapter no more than a casual mention and then presented a lesson and invited discussion on other materials of the teacher’s choice. That is not acceptable.

If we can’t get a blanket endorsement for Sunday School, it should be no surprise that we can’t get one for blogging.

But to a new visitor to the “Bloggernacle” it is not immediately or easily apparent which individuals are former latter-day saints and which are current members, and that can be confusing

As a person who joined the bloggernacle after your “departure” I had no idea you “left” the bloggernacle and no longer participate. To me, it looks like you are participating every time you post.

I wanted to be a voice that offered a different perspective for ones who might be searching. I wanted to do some good and strengthen my own testimony in the process, but I have found little good in Bloggernacle conversation outside of the few great friends I have met. Mostly, I have withdrawn, only commenting here or there, commenting less and less as time goes on. I find I have gravitated to a few places that are uplifting and tend to avoid others that I once spent much time in.

Though hearing all these “Alternate Voices” has led me to examine and solidify my own faith constructively, it is no fault of theirs. The question remains – how do we keep the balance? It seems that LDS, non-mainstream or -aggregated blogging will not be exposed to the vast traffic the Bloggernacle enjoys. Any aggregation efforts would simply lead to something much like the Bloggernacle. What good is blogging, if the blogs are never read? How do you participate in the mainstream without wasting your time on lost battles?

Is there any way to be in the world of the Internet consistently and not of it?

Great post. It rang true for me.