This blog post is in response to a conversation I had on another blog. The other blogger is a member of my church, so shares my beliefs. I don't necessarily share all of hers. But I like to read her blog because she is a good writer, and is funny, and many of her posts are really good. But recently I have disagreed with some of her posts. I made a comment the other day that really laid my feelings out there. She said my comment was"snarky". She's right, it was a little snarky. I think my feelings weren't just directed at her, but were directed at all of the bloggers who share the same thinking as her. I couldn't really say what I wanted to say without it coming across as snarky. So basically, I just said the truth, and laid out my feelings, and she had to take the brunt of it. You can't read my comments. She deleted them. That's okay with me, I delete some comments too. In fact, that is one of the perks of having your own blog; you can delete whatever you want. And I may or may not actually share this post with her. She doesn't read my blog, and I really don't want to start an argument, so that isn't my purpose of writing this.
In fact, our blogs are our own. We write what we want, and whoever disagrees can choose not to read them. But after thinking about this situation, I have come to feel that there comes a point when our blogs are not our own anymore. This particular person is quite well known in the community, and is often in the public eye. She is a writer for a well known newspaper. So because of this exposure, she has a fairly large readership, and a lot of Mormon women in particular read her blog. If she were not Mormon, I think my views of her blog would be different. But as a member of our church I feel that if she writes about religious beliefs, and speaks about our church, she has become a representative of sorts. So in this way, her blog isn't just a place to talk about her feelings, but has become a place to teach about our religion. That changes everything. If you are going to show yourself as a member of our church, then in my opinion, everything you write of religious nature should represent our beliefs. If she did not present herself as a member, and didnt' have non-members learning our beliefs from her, I would not take issue with what she writes.
I have a religion blog, and I am very careful to write only what is true doctrine. I don't want non-members to learn something incorrect, and I don't want to lead members to believe something that isn't pure doctrine. Even within the church, I feel it very important to only teach pure doctrine. The church actually teaches us to make sure that everything we teach is doctrine, and to not go off on a tangent explaining about our own personal ideas. It's not a matter of taking away free speech, it's a matter of making sure that incorrect teachings don't infiltrate the church. We have manuals, and are expected to use them, and not use outside sources in teaching doctrine. We use the same manuals worldwide, ensuring that worldwide our churches teach the same doctrine. You won't find an LDS church in another country teaching contrary beliefs. Yes, yes, I know that a blog is not church. But in this case, many mormon women follow her blog, and are greatly influenced by what she writes. So in a way, it is a way to preach outside of church, so is preaching none the less.
I have seen a trend in the church recently to adopt worldly thinking. Those who come up with their new "doctrine" appear to feel that they have come across a sort of "superior" thinking, and that some day the church will catch up. But truth is absolute. Either something is true, or it isn't. So it disturbed me when this writer shared some personal beliefs that actually have no foundation in true doctrine. It was pure speculation, and I'm sure when she wrote it, she felt she had hit on some new doctrine, and that she should share it with everyone. But because her blog is so popular, she has influenced many women to believe with her; going against true doctrine.
I'm sure she viewed my comments as hateful. She said as much. I was not feeling hate when I wrote them. I was feeling that someone needed to stand up and remind her that she has a great influence on other women, and even though it may make her feel important to have some secret doctrine that no one else has discovered yet, she needs to be careful in what she writes. Being in the public eye is a two edged sword. It can give you a great forum to influence the public in positive ways. But it can also lead the public astray in detrimental ways. Those in the public eye need to be very careful about their influence on others. Blogs are dangerous because we can say whatever we want. She gets paid to write for her employer, so has to be careful that she doesn't write anything that will risk her employment. With a blog, there is no watchdog, except for people who comment.
Maybe we don't have to bare our souls on blogs. And maybe we don't have to share every idea or belief, especially if we have a large readership. The written word is powerful. We have a responsibility to be careful how we use that power.
And that is my 599 cents worth...
About Me
- Delirious
- Wife, mother, follower of Jesus Christ and LDS church member, former Taiwan missionary.
Back in America
My Chinese Name
41 comments:
Hi.
I'm the other comment she deleted from her post yesterday, and when you commented again today, I had to find you. Since your comment was in response to my comment, I think we can be in the same club!
I, too, didn't feel snarky or mean when I posted yesterday, but it came across to her that way. I feel bad about it, but I don't want to stir the pot any more so I'm just gonna let it go.
Just so you know, I feel exactly the way you do in this post and in your comment. I feel like it isn't cool to stand up for pure doctrine any more, and that slope can get very slippery. I don't know what the solution is, because I can't just stand by and let unusual or untrue statements be passed off as truth from our Church as a whole. So. What would President Uchtdorf do? Hmmm... That's the question.
Following your blog now. Well written post.
Hi Jen! Thank you so much for stopping by! I'm biting my typing fingers right now because her last post about love was directed as us evil people. Bite...bite...bite.... Anyway, I feel like there have to be voices for good in the world. We won't be popular. I can guarantee that. But I can't just sit by and not add my voice to the conversation. I'm sure I was the same during the war in heaven. I think the biggest offense that I committed was telling the truth. But unfortunately, the truth hurts.
The thing you two should know is that those of us who are NOT Mormon become vastly more interested in your "religion" when someone like Cjane speaks openly and honestly from her heart about her place within it. I have always understood Mormons to be absolutist freaks -- until those like Cjane began to express their complex faith and how being Mormon defines who they are in the world. Your dogmatism sounds more fearful than godly -- arrogance masked as truth.
Elizabeth, this is the point I gave been trying to make all along. I think CJane is a great writer. I think she has an immense power for good in the world. People like you will listen to her because she really does have a great voice. But I want to make sure that there is no confusion on your part about what we believe. In addition, there are many member women who listen to her. Some of them may become confused because of some of the things she has written. I just felt my voice is important too, and I have to defend my own beliefs as well.
Get a life and stop worrying about what others think about your religion. Who made you the "master" of religion. It is people like you that give the church a bad image. Why do you fear others opinions. You are brainwashed and maybe it is time to think for yourself and not be so caught up in blogging about doctrine, please. You are one of the mormon "freaks" that give the faith a bad name!
Ha ha anonymous...your comments, particularly the last one, made me laugh. Sorry, but those kind of comments I can't even take seriously. But thanks for the laugh
You act as if your personal belief is automatically more superior than hers, as if it is your religion more than it is hers. The churches "true doctrine" is changing. Brigham young taught some racist things about black people, and now the church officially disavows it. As far as her waiting for the church to catch up, I remember Mitt Romney talking about how how he remembers wanting black men to receive the priesthood, how he had hoped and waited for it. Guess he was waiting for the church to catch up as well. Glad they did, on that issue.
Anonymous, I never specifically mentioned which issues I disagreed with. In fact, I am thinking more of a different issue than the Priesthood for women issue. But the one thing that is a little troubling is that I think that you probably never even read my initial comment to her. I stand by what I said to her. Maybe the reason it bothered her so much was that there was truth in it.
Wow, your words are full of nastiness. I love my faith because it includes an open Canon and personal revelation. People sharing their faith jouneys help me and others to make our way toward Jesus. I'm so thankful that the church is working to show acceptance and inclusion of individuals and working toward sharing truthful history, I hope we as members will follow that example. People who want to shove others into a box they find acceptable are the members who drive other members away and give fodder to those who would claim the "church" is only interested in producing conformist robots who are systematically taught to follow blindly and leave reason and logic and feeling and intuition and inspiration behind. God is love. Your arguments here and there are not full of love but full of bullying and belittling. Not cool.
I didn't read your comment, and I never said anything about women and the priesthood. I was just pointing out that "true doctrine" evolves, wanting and hoping for it to do so is always so much more admirable when looking back 30 years later, and no one has a claim on another persons religious beliefs or truth. She is not obligated to you or anyone else to speak anything other than what is true and meaningful to her.
You know what is ironic to me? All of these comments are FAR nastier than my initial comment to her. How can people tell me I'm too critical and judgmental out of one side of their mouth, and out if the other do the same thing I am accused of doing by calling me names? Wow.....maybe I don't want to include myself in her readership
You open yourself up to judgement when you put this on the internet for anyone/everyone to see. If you don't like it shut up. And I notice you don't defend any of the statements people have made regarding the hypocrisy you are showing regarding the church.interesting.
What doctrine do you have in mind, Delirious? Which personal beliefs of CJane's directly contradict Mormon doctrine? This is a genuine question because I do not know. Please be specific in your explanation. Thanks for your time.
Anonymous, I didn't argue because I don't like to argue. I didn't feel the need to address the issue because I don't agree. I have my view, you have yours, let's not argue.
Sound, she specifically wrote a Mother's Day post announcing to everyone that she had received some inspiration that the Holy Ghost is actually our Heavenly mother. The scriptures specifically say "he" . That is not a teaching in our religion, and I fear that these kinds of teachings could actually confuse women in the church, and send incorrect messages to non-members.
Anonymous, i didn't even read your comment, because I saw immediately that it was abusive. I will continue to delete similar posts. Perhaps you have something better to do with your time?
She said in the post "this is not a doctrine of our church. this is not something our church teaches". She makes it obvious that the concept is something that speaks truth to her. I don't see that she's teaching anything.
The scriptures always say "he" and "man". They were written by "he" and "man". So of course those are the pronouns the writers used.
Hi, I am an active Mormon (just to give you context) and I am not offended by bloggers like CJane. I think you are giving her too much power - just because she raises ideas that may be different to mainstream Mormon belief doesn't mean everyone will suddenly fall in a confused heap and deny everything they know to be true. If anything, I think raising questions and doubts and letting others see the process of seeking answers will lead them to turn to God with their questions too. There are many people in the Church who feel marginalized or that they don't fit in or they struggle with certain issues and don't know how to resolve them. Having bloggers who raise their own questions actually provides a light for people that feel a bit lost in the Church, helping them to see that they do have a place and that their concerns are valid.
Hi there Delirious. I hopped over here from C. Jane's blog. I feel like you are probably unlikely to change your mind about these things because it seems you view the church, its purpose, and members' positions within it with an entirely different paradigm than church members such as Courtney and myself, but I want to add my two cents here. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but I respectfully disagree with a few things you've said:
"If you are going to show yourself as a member of our church, then in my opinion, everything you write of religious nature should represent our beliefs."
I am having trouble understanding what you object so strongly to. I believe Courtney highlights the best and most beautiful parts of our church. Most of her beliefs align almost entirely with mine and those of many other faithful members I know. When she writes something I think differently about, I rejoice that the power of personal revelation can bring joy and understanding to each of us in our own way. Who am I to say what God has or has not told her or anyone else?
"We have manuals, and are expected to use them, and not use outside sources in teaching doctrine."
Have you never used a personal story in a talk? Never used a silly little object lesson in Primary? Do your talks and lessons consist entirely of quoted scriptures, GA quotes, and only questions from the manual? It has been my experience in the church that it is virtually impossible to divorce one's understanding of doctrine from the experiences and contexts of the individual. Every time you open your mouth or type something gospel-related, you are preaching "the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture."
"It was pure speculation, and I'm sure when she wrote it, she felt she had hit on some new doctrine, and that she should share it with everyone."
How are you sure of her motives and intents? This is a huge assumption and I reject its validity.
"But because her blog is so popular, she has influenced many women to believe with her; going against true doctrine."
Again, how do you know this? I, though I happen to agree with most things Courtney says, came to my beliefs without her influence, but on my own after searching, pondering, and prayer. You belittle the intellect and spiritual strength of the women you mention when you imply that they might change doctrinal beliefs or "go astray" after reading the thoughts of one blogger. You also assume that you know that what she's saying isn't doctrine. Again, not for you to decide (except for yourself, of course).
"I was feeling that someone needed to stand up and remind her that she has a great influence on other women, and even though it may make her feel important to have some secret doctrine that no one else has discovered yet, she needs to be careful in what she writes."
Again, how do you know it makes her feel important or that she thinks she has some secret doctrine? That is a hurtful thing to say and it is founded in nothing other than your own speculations. I can only imagine how hurtful it might be to her when people accuse her of bad motives when in my opinion, she seems to be writing from a very vulnerable place in an honest attempt to flesh out feelings, understand herself, and connect with others.
I also disagree that it is your job to police the internet, "standing up" to remind people to be careful. I respect your right to your opinion, but the snark, the assumptions, and the idea that Courtney should have to filter what she says to make sure it aligns with what you believe is abhorrent to me. For many people in and out of the church, I think it's comforting to know that there's room for speculation, question asking, and personal revelation within the framework of the gospel. Especially for those outside the church who think it is a cult that enforces groupthink and brainwashing, it's a positive thing to see a little diversity of thought and opinion.
Again, I respect your right to differ and your right to express your opinions. But I feel the need to "stand up" and defend my friends when those opinions are expressed in hurtful ways. I am sometimes tempted to reply with snark, but I really can't imagine Christ being snarky, so I try to wait and comment or respond until I feel able to reach out in more empathetic ways. That is what I have tried to do here--I have tried to understand your viewpoint and express myself with respect where I disagree. I just feel strongly that it is unkind and unnecessary to try and silence voices such as Courtney's, just because you disagree.
I welcome your response, but I hope that you will respond to the words I've written here and not your interpretations of my thoughts, motives, or spiritual standing.
"she specifically wrote a Mother's Day post announcing to everyone that she had received some inspiration that the Holy Ghost is actually our Heavenly mother. The scriptures specifically say "he" . That is not a teaching in our religion, and I fear that these kinds of teachings could actually confuse women in the church, and send incorrect messages to non-members."
Oh, so you mean the post where she explicitly states that this is not doctrine? Honestly, it seems like you don't have much respect for your fellow Mormon women. Are they really so intellectually helpless? Do they really need your guidance on correct and incorrect beliefs? Can't they decide for themselves what to do with Cjane's impressions? If her ideas are so silly, then Mormons are free to dismiss them as such. As for non-members, well... as I said, she was quite clear that her inspiration was not doctrinal. What more would you have her do? Not mention it? Be afraid of sharing what was for her a very positive and uplifting experience in a Mormon context (Mormons should be thrilled that a high-profile blogger puts such positive Mormon experiences out there for non-Mos to read). Should she cower to the Orthodoxy Police?
You cannot control what other people, Mormon and not, say or feel or think about the Church, and I am not sure I see much to be gained by trying.
Can I just say first that I love the last 6 comments that have been written? I feel like they were written intelligently, and thougtfully, unlike Anonymous who was just spewing out hate in a foul mouthed way. I I must add that I felt my comments to CJane were just as thoughtful as yours. Unfortunately, she deleted them, so you can't judge fott yourselves. What I said was, " The trend in the blogging world is to....." And then proceeded to explain what I feel bloggers are doing. I didn't call her names. I honestly felt at the time that I was being constructive, not Snarky. I even told her later that my feelings when I wrote it were not snarky. My comment was no more filled with evil intent than yours were. But I think she read it with a certain voice in her head. And maybe I did hit a nerve of truth. I apologized for offending her. But I have to say that Itvwas unfair for her to write a post likening my remarks to the evil that existed in the Book of Mormon, and calling them evil and horrible, and then deleting them so no one could judge for themselves. Instead, people have assumed that I made comments perhaps calling her names or telling her she is horrible and going to hell. Frankly, my comments were a tamed down version of this post. I might have to split this comment to fit.
Did any of you feel filled with evil as you responded to my post? I don't think so, although some of you may have felt ....hmmm...anger? Does that mean it was an evil, horrible comment? Not in my book. And I read the other comment as well. That writer shared the same concerns as mine. She was a little more direct in saying what she didn't like, but I didn't feel she was spewing out gate or being evil.
You all make a good point that women can get their own revelation. But honestly, some people are new to the church and struggle in that regard. You are right, I don't know if someone were confused by her posts. But you don't know that they weren't either.
Bottom line....I saw what for me was a big concern. You may disagree, and that's fine. I spoke up and was branded as a heretic for speaking my opinion. I will always speak my mind. You gave spoken yours to me, and I don't fault you for that. You gave said it in a direct way. I really think that if you had written comments like these to her, she would have called them snarky too.
If I could say something more to CJane, of course I would apologize, once more, but I would also advise her to leave negative comments. Let the readers respond. And don't read them with a "snarky" voice in your head, because perhaps they were not written with one. You can read things differently depending on how you are feeling in the moment. And maybe my grammar was bad, and things came across differently than I intended. Give me a benefit of the doubt. Because honestly, I feel my comments were no more harsh than those given to me by your friends.
Bah... I hate auto correct. I hope you can make sense of what I wrote. Lol
Perhaps you should stop reading Courtney's blog since you don't seem to like reading what she writes.
You know mpierce, I don't say this to sound mean, but I actually think you may be right. I think Courtney is an excellent writer, but lately her views have taken a course that I am not conpfortable with. And if I disagree with something she writes, and feel compelled to speak up, I run the risk of offending her and making her feel bad again. My intention in my comments were never to hurt her, just to speak up about my concerns. So yes, I think I will follow your advice.
Obviously there is more than one anonymous here. I guess if you lump them all together you can ignore valid points. Sounds like you are completely back pedaling on this part of your post.
"She said my comment was"snarky". She's right, it was a little snarky. I think my feelings weren't just directed at her, but were directed at all of the bloggers who share the same thinking as her. I couldn't really say what I wanted to say without it coming across as snarky. So basically, I just said the truth, and laid out my feelings, and she had to take the brunt of it. "
So was is snarky or not? Did she or did she not not get to take the brunt of your feelings towards a large group of bloggers whom likely don not think alike on every issue?
Anonymous, you are right, sorry, I can't tell the difference between who is who when they are all named anonymous.
I think there is a BIG difference between snarky and evil. To me, snarky means ...maybe snippy? Yea, I think it was a little snippy. Frankly, I would call almost every comment I've gotten in response to this post as snippy. There is an edge to them. But she likened my "snarkiness" to the evils that existed in the Book of Mormon times. Really? We are talking about a time when people were raping and killing, and feeding people the flesh of their husbands. My comments, which included no swearing, no name calling, were equal to that?
When I said she took the brunt, yes she did in a way, because I have read other blogs that have the same problems. I have made the same kinds of comments on those blogs as well, and they have disagreed with me. A conversation actually happened between us. So although I was repeating my same frustrations, that applied to other blogs as well, they totally applied to hers.
Did you feel this post was snarky? Probably was a little. But did you feel it was hateful? I don't see that. My comment to her was pretty much the same as this post,only a much shorter version. I think that what I said was direct, maybe even sharp. But honestly, as one other commenter above said, this is blog land, and she put the ideas out there, so she should be prepared for people to disagree. Most posts of hers won't be a problem. But some subjects are contoversial, and if she chooses to post them, she should be prepared for people to disagree. I've already dropped her blog from my reading list, so she doesn't have to worry about me, but there will be others.
Honestly, I think the reason she is so upset is that I made a good point. Because, and I say this again, I don't think my comments were any more evil than the comments of her friends on this post. I don't think "snarky" is worthy of deletion. I deleted some posts of an "anonymous" because they were just a tirade of foul language and name calling. My comment was not like that. But I think it hit a nerve, so that's why it hurt her.
Kristy, I fully agree with you. Thanks for posting.
I didn't get a chance to read the comments before they were deleted, but I do have a problem with your "teach only pure doctrine" stance. It is a lay church. No one teaches pure doctrine. We are all interpreting doctrine every day we live the gospel the best we know how, and every lesson we teach. It is impossible to know in the church today what is doctrine and what is not. When push comes to shove, the brethren put out a talk that says basically if one apostle says something, it's not necessarily doctrine, may just be their opinion. And modern prophets look back and say that prior prophets were just plain wrong. (Brigham Young and his Adam God theory and polygamy practice.) So who do you follow? Do you only quote the current prophet in your lessons? In a talk? Because hateful things were said about blacks by nearly all prior prophets, so we no longer quote it. Another example: Do you stand up in primary and hold the gospel art picture kit with the rendition of Joseph translating the plates on a table? Or do you teach the true history (See Rough Stone Rolling for historical references) that Joseph put his head in a hat with a peep stone? Do you see that "pure doctrine" doesn't exist?
you're all nuts
Anonymous 1: if pure doctrine doesn't exist, them why did the church give us thus council.? To be perfectly honest, people have been brought to church courts for preaching their own ideas. I'm not saying that about CJane, I'm just making a point. We have the scriptures, and we have manuals, and we have the words of the prophets.
Anonymous 2: that comment still has me laughing. :D
I just typed a long comment and lost it, and I dont' have time to retype.
Bottom line is this. I think you sound naive. YOUR blog has the pure doctrine. Doctrine evolves. If you were alive during Brigham Young's time and were told to believe in the Adam/God theory because your salvation depended on it, you would. Because you live now that modern prophets have said they refute the Adam/God theory (even though it was part of the temple ceremony for a long time) you do. Do you see how doctrine changes over time? The manuals are only parts of church history. The first vision as we were taught growing up is not the whole story. There are 4 different accounts. The church is now trying to make it right by issuing several statements starting last fall to give more information about church history. See LDS.org https://www.lds.org/topics/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng
Just because it isn't in the manual or the scriptures doesn't mean it's not a historical fact. I'm glad the church is realizing that people want the truth and they are trying to set the record straight.
Who knows if there will be a statement about a heavenly mother? Cjane's private thoughts about her relationship with God/Heavenly Mother are hers. She wasn't trying to speak for the church.
WHen the Prophet announces a doctrine, then I will accept it. Until then, I am trying my best to. Stay away from gray areas. Hut see, I really appreciate that you and I were at least able to have thus discussion. CJane just deleted my comment. Gah...I hate auto correct. I have to say that your last comment about there being no pure doctrine has been really bothering me. It's frightening to me that you really believe that. Yes, people sometimes teach their own ideas because they aren't perfect. But that doesn't mean pure doctrine doesn't exist.
I'm sorry it's bothering you. I think it would bother a lot of LDS people because they are raised to be very black and white thinkers and want to be told exactly what to do so they can obey and be happy. When there are gray areas--which there are plenty of--it's hard for us to think for ourselves what we really believe. So much easier to say, "Tell me what to believe and I'll believe it." Here is a great podcast to listen to from a BYU professor that explains how fluid our doctrine is. But, I'm doubtful you will listen. http://mormonstories.org/317-318-byu-professor-charles-harrell-and-the-evolution-of-mormon-doctrine/
I firmly believe that your blog is your own. CJane is an individual, not a spokesperson for her church. She is free to express her interpretations of her beliefs. You can have a blog about doctrine just like she can have a blog about her life that includes her religion. How dare you tell her what she should and should not blog about. Who made YOU the church's doctrine police. You have no right. You owe her and anyone else you have attacked an apology. I swear, self-righteous mormons like you MAKE MY BLOOD BOIL.
Anonymous 1: yea you are right, I'm not interested in listening. Just because someone is a BYU professor doesn't mean they have all truth either. I went to BYU, I know. Far too many people in the church relish the gray areas. I'm going to focus on the scriptures.
Anonymous 2: Yes, it is her blog, and she is free to write what she wants. I already apologized for offending her. But frankly, I am free to comment too, just like you did. And your comments were far nastier than mine were.
You mean the scriptures that THEY JUST CHANGED? You know there's a new version, right? Ever changing doctrine......
And this statement just came out about how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon. It's on LDS.org. Is that doctrine to you or is that just a website? We are told to teach from it. The article explains that Joseph translated using a seer stone in a hat. Are you going to start teaching that in Primary now or stick to the picture you are comfortable with?
http://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng
Anonymous...you are free to not visit my blog, but im here to stay.
You don't like to argue? This initial blog is an argument and every subsequent comment you make is an argument. Grow up!
Sorry Anonymous, you are a little slow. That train left 5 months ago.
Post a Comment