Subscribe Feed (RSS)Blogging as a Lightning Rod
February 1st, 2007 by Allen | Filed under Mormon, Writing and Editing.If you're new here, read more about the More Good Foundation. We help members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormon church) share their beliefs on the Internet. Learn more about what Mormons believe or talk with Mormons at LDS.net.
Blogs are a great communication tool. The immediacy and individuality evident in blogs are, I believe, part of their draw. They allow individuals of all stripes to share ideas and generate discussion.
There is an interesting side effect to blogs, however: They attract lightning. When a high-profile individual thoughtfully shares his or her ideas and feelings on a blog, it is only a matter of time before people comment and a sort of “organized chaos” takes place. Some call such chaos an example of “community,” but often the divergence in views is anything but communitarian in nature. Indeed, some commenters have more in common with vandals, thugs, and despots than they do with respectful dialogue.
Take, for example, Mike Otterson’s blog at On Faith. The sponsors of the blog (The Washington Post and Newsweek magazine) invite people from various religious backgrounds (Mike is only one of many) to post answers to specific questions that they pose. The posts are to be short, preferrably about 250 words. In participating, Mike doesn’t speak officially for the Church (even though he works for the Church’s Public Affairs department), and simply offers his own ideas and feelings. It is my experience that his posts are thoughtful, concise, and reflective. They are enjoyable to read and to contemplate.
It is my observation that Mike’s posts invariably serve as a lightning rod. The comments that follow each of his posts, almost without exception, devolve into a “shouting contest” among people concerning the truth of the Church, the supposed evils perpetrated by the Church, and (from time to time) how Mormons aren’t Christian and barely rate as humans.
As an example, it is not unusual for commenters to accuse Mike of lying (”…misinformation is put out by PR hacks like Otterson that lie about the past history of the LDS church” and “Otterson’s column is a bunch of lies”), being inaccurate (”Each response Mr. Otterson has posted is full of inaccuracies if not outright lies”), lacking integrity (”Mr. Otterson, the problem is your lack of candor and integrity when it comes to the beliefs of your organization”), and–when Mike fails to respond to the liking of the gainsayers–he is despicable (”Otterson is despicable to not respond…”). These are not all of them; the lightning-rod effect of blogging is in full force in Mike’s postings at On Faith.
It is interesting that the nasty, visceral and totally unwarranted attacks on Mike led the Producer of the On Faith blog, Caryle Murphy, to interject himself into the “discussion” on January 20. In part, she said “some comments posted to the site have been otherwise. Some have been insulting and abusive to panelists. It is one thing to disagree with and critique another person’s views. It is quite another to personally attack that person or a group of people with insulting words.” It is disheartening to see Mike Otterson’s thought-provoking posts (and Mike himself) become the targets of such disrespectful behavior.
But, there is a way to help counteract the lightning-rod effect. It obviously isn’t productive to argue with those who are so disagreeable in their comments, and such behavior doesn’t lead to “more good” content on the Internet. (Paraphrasing my dear old dad, “Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig enjoys it.”) It is, however, beneficial to comment thoughtfully and—where appropriate—supportively of the issues that Mike raises. Surely there has to be more sane voices of reason than those that normally rally ’round the lightning rod. If you let your voice be heard, you are doing your part to help support civil discourse and dialogue.
I don’t mean to single out Mike Otterson as the only lightning rod in Mormondom; there are unfortunately many out there. Let’s all try a little hard to make our reasonable voices heard in support of those (like Mike) who are reasonable in what they post and share.
I just took a look at some of the super-threads on Otterson’s blog. The DAMU really hit him hard…the same folks that troll through the ‘nacle (until eventually being banned). It is truly unfortunate that these folks are such sociopaths.
Not every member of the DAMU is a troll or sociopath. It is unfortunate that some are, and I wish they would not act the way they do. But when I scrolled through the most recent thread, I only recognized one regular DAMU commenter, Dave Sigmann, whose comment was thoughtful and gently phrased.
lightning — the word is lightning
Right you are; my gaffe! (I corrected the spelling.)
Great blog entry, I’m going to link to it next week!
What happened to the polygamy.byu.edu pages?
Whoever wrote those pages was doing his part to “support civil discourse and dialogue”, but now the link just redirects to ldsfaq.byu.edu, with no explanation. Seems a pity.
Duh, I should’ve read under the LDS Headlines on the BCC site …
BYU polygamy Web page dumped - Salt Lake Tribune
Hmmm, let’s see. You have a post decrying the incivility of people who question the LDS Church’s PR spokesman on a blog set up for dialogue about faith. And in that post, those who dare step away from the party line parroted by Brother Otterson are labeled “pigs,” “trolls,” “vandals,” “thugs,” “insane and unreasonable” (by implication), and “sociopaths.” Nice. Very nice.
Beijing,
Other regular DAMU commenters included myself, Mayan Elephant, Domokun, Desert Vulture, Lunar Quaker, Hellmut, Belaja, Wry Catcher, Captain Jack, and Liseysmom, among others.
Why would believers worry about “lightning” in a free forum?
If someone attacks Ottersen unreasonably, that would seem to be an opportunity that believers can exploit.
If you disagree with Ottersen’s critics then tell the world why they are wrong. There is no reason to call them names. And no, Jeff, debate is not sociopathic. The choice of that word says a lot more about you then your guests at BCC who criticized Ottersen in terms of reasons.
If you think that their arguments are unreasonable, the proper response is an argument to that effect.
In a free forum, a quality argument will prevail on its merits.
As long as there is a free exchange of ideas, believers shouldn’t have to worry. Doing so anyways only reveals their lack of faith.
J.-
I know personally several of the DAMU commenters that have posted on Otterson’s blog. They are all very sincere people with real objections to the viewpoints expressed by Otterson. The DAMU folks (myself included) have a difficult time accepting Otterson’s remarks as anything but an attempt to polish the church’s public image.
You might disagree with their opinions, but don’t you see the irony in labelling the DAMU participants as sociopaths? Aren’t you exhibiting the very behavior that you decry?
Dave at Mormon Inquiry weighs in:
Otterson Stands Tall
I read a lot of anti-books before and pro-books before and after joining the LDS church. And I have been attacked for my beliefs also in such blogs.
It seems to me that most of those shouters (not the thinkers) haven’t experienced the peace of the Holy Spirit, and are truely clueless. The Spirit speaks to all of God’s children, and we have no monopoly on God’s love.
The shouters have not yet learned that.
[...] the Internet often leads to “cyber-bullying,” extreme rudeness, and visceral attacks. (Blogging can be a lightning rod!) When we see such behavior, we can remain polite and collected, and we can stand for respectful [...]
This one makes sence “One’s first step in wisdom is to kuesstion everything - and one’s last is to come to terms with everything.”