Comments on: What is faithful Mo-blogging?

By: queuno

queuno — Fri, 25 May 2007 14:48:45 +0000

Whatever a faithful Mo-Blog looks like, it probably needs a new bannerâ€¦ Perhaps a heavenly banner?

By: CS Eric

CS Eric — Thu, 24 May 2007 19:58:49 +0000

DKL,
As I was reading your comment, I was reminded of the old cartoon where in the first frame the character says, “I asked myself, what would Jesus do? and I forgave him.” In the next frame the character says, “Then I asked myself, what would Porter Rockwell do? and I hit him.”

If DKL is making the comments Jesus would, who is making the Porter Rockwell comments? Or are they reserved to the Snarkernackle?

By: greenfrog

greenfrog — Thu, 24 May 2007 18:58:14 +0000

Perhaps in considering “faithful” blogging, we’re mistaking appearance for substance.

A faith-filled blogger will enact her/his faith through her/his blogging — what sort of actions depends on what sort of faith.

Faith in community will yield a blog that creates community.

Faith in rational thinking will yield a blog that embodies rational thought.

Perhaps faith in Christ would yield a blog that loves its enemies, blesses them that curse it, does good to those who despitefully use it and persecute it, one that leaves 99 and seeks the 1, one that makes of itself a lamp for the feet of others.

I’m reminded of an observation by a woman who returned to her home in the United States from a Zen retreat where she’d spent several years. IIRC, she said something to the effect of “My parents really hate it when I act Buddhist. But they love it when I act the role of the Buddha.”

In the context of blogging, perhaps we should worry less about displaying our “Mormonism” through our blogging and simply engage in the works of Christ. The accounts we have of His life suggest plenty of intellectual engagement, debate, wordplay and repartee, for those of us so inclined. They suggest plenty of bombast and diatribe, for those so inclined. And they suggest plenty of wildly revolutionary ideas about how to interact with others to create something pretty remarkable.

Am I a faithful blogger? Probably not by anyone’s standards but my own.

But I’d rather live by the light I see than by what I think others will think of the light that they think they see when they glance in my direction.

By: m&m

m&m — Thu, 24 May 2007 18:22:21 +0000

HP,
If it helps any, my husband also finds most of this to be fruitless as well. His attitude is, “I know it’s true, so what else matters?” On one hand, I sort of am that way at one level, but enjoy conversations both to understand different points of view and to have specific issues and topics to mull over. So, for what it’s worth, I think for some people like him, nothing you do would change his perspective because he’d just rather be spending his time doing something else. I think I remember him saying that he also had some experiences in grad school with “intellectuals” (I really hate that label) who didn’t really care about anyone’s point of view but their own, who didn’t seem to care much about the faith side of things, so that probably left a bad taste in his mouth.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 24 May 2007 17:43:55 +0000

How about judging people on the content of their posts, not on the contents of their cup. By this I mean that so many latter-day saints spend so much time worrying about a commenter’s standing (see, for example, “The Mormons”), as if the commenter’s membership status were only way to gauge whether or not someone’s comments were of value.

Let’s hear what the say, and make base our judgments alone on the argument’s merits.Let’s drop the whole insular persecution-complex thing, mmkay?

By: Ray

Ray — Thu, 24 May 2007 17:40:44 +0000

Can we dance around the bush as long as it’s doing an interpretive burn?

By: Loyd (the narrator)

Loyd (the narrator) — Thu, 24 May 2007 17:31:24 +0000

Can we just cut to the chase and get to the point? Enough dancing around the bush. Who are the faithful bloggers and who are the Mormon Friendly Anti-Mormons? I want names.

Let the inquisition begin.

By: Ray

Ray — Thu, 24 May 2007 15:17:40 +0000

In my various callings, I have told the full-time missionaries in my wards and stakes for the past 15 years to stop telling people exactly how they will receive an answer to a prayer or a testimony. I also have told everyone who will listen to stop telling people they can “know” whatever they want to know. Those two claims don’t match our scriptures.

First, just like teachers tend to teach with their own learning modality, members and missionaries tend to think everyone will feel and experience the same way they do. To complicate it further, we tend to think if one person was told they will feel the Spirit in a certain way (e.g., Oliver Cowdery’s burning in the bosom and stupor of thought), then everyone should be able to feel it in the same way. We need to recognize that the “fruits of the Spirit” are wide and varied, and any one of them can signal an answer to prayer or a spiritual impression. What makes it “real” to the asker is their own recognition of it, which is the tricky part.

We talk about individual conversion, but interestingly, the single best indicator of future baptism that has been identified in our stake, with the guidance of our Area Authorities, is Sacrament Meeting attendance. It isn’t referral source or “strong witness of the Book of Mormon” or answer to prayer – but Sacrament Meeting attendance. I think there is an entire thread’s worth of discussion on that one, but I simply will point out the communal spirit that hopefully attends that meeting. Likewise, their is great power in the sharing that occurs at sites like this. Thanks for pointing that out, Ann.

Second, “to some is given the gift to know; to others is given the gift to believe on those who know.” “Nuff said.

What constitutes faithful blogging? Perhaps, as others have said, it’s no more than honest expressions of sincere faith. I hope not every comment here needs to be “faithful” – but I hope every comment is honest and sincere. I also hope all of us are governed internally by the Golden Rule.

By: Ann

Ann — Thu, 24 May 2007 15:08:54 +0000

HP, I don’t think we are necessarily dismissing others when we accept that our perspectives differ. There isn’t one true perspective or approach to enlightenment. What works for your brother at this time and place in his life wouldn’t have worked for me, and vice versa, and that’s OK.

By: HP/JDC

HP/JDC — Thu, 24 May 2007 11:49:20 +0000

m&m,
Thank you for your comment. I suppose that I am interested in why my brother finds this endeavor to be so fruitless, when Ann found it to be fruitful. I too frown upon the general disparaging of Sunday School. I also find any group that includes me and yet considers itself intellectually superior to be fairly delusional. I don’t think the nacle in general believes this to be the case. I don’t think I would hang around if they did. But it is a caution.

I also, obviously, agree that a simple response of “screw ‘em,” while usually satisfying isn’t helpful. However, sometimes we may have to admit that our way isn’t anothers. Not that that is inherently sufficient reason to absolutely dismiss another…

Ann,
Thanks for hanging around. Please feel free to ignore my recent apology for the brethren on another site ;)

BRoz,
I know someone who have told me that she prayed about the Book of Mormon and was told it wasn’t true. I still don’t know what to think about it, but there is that.

Eric Russell,
I double dog dare you to write a post about scripture marking.

DKL,
I always assumed that was what you did. I am please to finally have confirmation. Now I know we are in the same church.