The Internet and the Future of Mormonism...

Post by **_Maxrep** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:32 am

asbestosman wrote:. The bishop also mentioned that the church believes that the internet will fuel growth. I'm not so convinced. I think it will help clear up some misconceptions, but I think it will eventually backfire as people eventually realize that there is more to the story than they realized. Soon people will have to ask themselves why it is that the correlation committee omits references to BY having "wives, and why part of the Wentworth Letter was edited.

You are an absolute genius! I'm extending a cyber high five with all the fancy hand jive!

This will be quite interesting. Now your average members who know little of church history, and doctrinal discrepancies, are going to be wading out into the waters of 'Google', for thus they were called. Would Elder Ballard be inclined to let the missionaries spend some of their proselyting hours blogging their testimonies?

It may be that bishops will be fielding quite a lot of questions in the near future about this new brand of church history that is being taught on the internet. The church forfeited the opportunity to teach this history long ago. Bishops whose responses have consisted of, "I'm not a scriptorian", or "I'm not a historian", may feel like they are pinned under a rock.

I don't think this idea was thought through to its final conclusion, but he has my sustaining vote.

Post by **_Inconceivable** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:54 am

Maxrep wrote:It may be that bishops will be fielding quite a lot of questions in the near future about this new brand of church history that is being taught on the internet. The church forfeited the opportunity to teach this history long ago. Bishops whose responses have consisted of, "I'm not a scriptorian", or "I'm not a historian", may feel like they are pinned under a rock.

I don't think this idea was thought through to its final conclusion, but he has my sustaining vote.

Me too.

It will be a defining moment for many - as it was for me.

As I drive by all those little 6th generation Mormon communities between Arizona and Utah, I wonder how they will redifine their faith. Curse of their fathers.

Post by **_The Dude** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 5:53 am

It sounds like Ballard is unleashing the Morgbots. "Start a blog" he says. "Don't let the critics define us" he says.

On average, do you think these new online Mormons will be "thinking" people who will consider all sides and make up their own minds, or are the just Morgbots who will flood the web with anecdotes and testimonials and counterfactual wishful thinking? I mean, if a thousand new blogs suddenly appear, all of them repeating the party line about the first vision and how Joseph loved Emma, it could bring results simply because of mass action. Hysteria happens.

_Ray A · Post by **_Ray A** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 6:09 am

guy sajer wrote:I don't think therer's any doubt that the internet hurts Mormonism. For decades, the Church kept members under control in part by controlling information. It can no longer do that (though it will try here and there to discourage members from seeking out critical voices). Information is power . . . and freedom.

The Internet only hurt the profoundly ignorant. All of this information was available in hardcopy long before the Internet. I don't know what you mean by "critical voices". I think it would be better described as "bitter, angry voices".

Those who form their opinions from "the Internet" are afficlited with "Scratch-o-mania".

Information is power? Yeah, verily. You want "freedom"? Do you think "the Internet" can verify whether Joseph actually had a vision?

Post by **_Dr. Shades** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 7:45 am

I thought this was a very good observation from the "Comments" section:

"The Church KNOWS what issues are generally out there. The Church refuses to answer them instead leaving it to apologists and now rank and file members!!"

That's a good observation. My only question is. . . why?

Post by **_asbestosman** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:51 am

Dr. Shades wrote:"The Church KNOWS what issues are generally out there. The Church refuses to answer them instead leaving it to apologists and now rank and file members!!"

That's a good observation. My only question is. . . why?

I'm sure some of you are thinking "plausible deniability" or something like that.

I'm thinking that perhaps it's for the same reason that a coach will sometimes put the less-than optimal players on the field--it gives others the chance to learn.

Post by **_truth dancer** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 12:14 pm

OK... something weird.

I was searching for something totally unrelated to anything Mormon and came across this link:

http://mormon-blogs.com/

I guess folks are obeying the prophets.

;-)

~dancer~

Post by **_Infymus** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 3:04 pm

Ballard wants Mormons to create websites and blogs to spread the Mormon Propaganda. But his rules are:

* Share what you know to be true (or if you follow Packer's advise, even if you don't know it to be true, share it anyway until you know it's true)
* Download videos from official church and other appropriate sites (has to be OFFICIAL and APPROPRIATE, it can't be Joseph's head in a hat, or him destroying a printing press, or him in the barn with a teenager)
* Let Daniel C. Peterson and Allen Wyatt be your spiritual compass: Flood the Internet with thousands of websites that will confuse and cause search engines to forward unsuspecting minds to LDS.ORG where they can be "properly" "indoctrinated".

Comon Mormons, get your blogs going, get your propaganda videos up, get your testimonies up of Jesus Smith!

[Telestial-worthy graphic gesture deleted]

Piss off Ballard.

_________________
Read http://www.mormoncurtain.com
Write http://www.exmormonforums.com
Resign http://www.mormonresignation.com

Post by **_Jason Bourne** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 3:05 pm

Information is power? Yeah, verily. You want "freedom"? Do you think "the Internet" can verify whether Joseph actually had a vision?

No. There is no way to verify this in an absolute subjective way. But information about Joseph, his life, what he did, what his character traits were and so on all have impact on whether we should trust what he said, or not. How he lived, what he did all has a bearing on his claims of divine visions.

Post by **_guy sajer** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 3:27 pm

Ray A wrote:
Information is power? Yeah, verily. You want "freedom"? Do you think "the Internet" can verify whether Joseph actually had a vision?

If information doesn't bestow power, why do power structures try so hard to control it?

Yes, I think that the internet can verify whether Joseph Smith had a vision. A few google clicks and suddenly you have a trove of information that you never got from Sundary School or the Ensign that allow you to reach an informed decision. I am confident that 9+ out of 10 persons, who do not have a lifetime of emotional and financial investment to defend, who assess the evidence for Joseph Smith now available on the internet will conclude that he never had a vision. No one was in the grove but him (though I doubt he ever actually went to the grove to pray), but the preponderance of evidence is heavy and one might conclude with 99% certainty that Joseph Smith did not, in fact, see God and Jesus in a vision.