I’m a relative newcomer to the LDS blog scene. My engagement began last year as I searched for a place where I could find answers – or at least discussion – on some of the difficult aspects of our church. My first thought was how many people there seemed to be discussing these topics. We only have a small church, but lots of people are actively engaged in writing and commenting on issues. I am continually heartened by the passion in which most people hold in making our church a better place.
Over the time that I have been reading LDS blogs I think I’ve read most of them. Some blogs are small, some large, some liberal, some apologetic, some are just hilarious and some are rather serious.
Common to all is the desire for people to contribute and be heard. Most blogs have a commenting policy. Wheat and Tares has one which can be accessed here. Some blogs moderate their comments closely, others not at all. Wheat and Tares has traditionally fallen towards the latter of that spectrum. From time to time, it seems appropriate to revisit the issue of how we comment and communicate with one another through our blog. The purpose of this post is to provide some ideas regarding commenting and to generate some discussion about how to continue to improve the way we all communicate.
In my professional role, I teach communication skills. Communicating is at the root of all we do. As a police officer, there are many ways in which I can communicate. A short example will highlight this.
I was on patrol one afternoon when we received a call that three men were at a house loading a car full of the house contents. The owners of the house were away and the neighbour did not recognise the men. As the neighbour called police they left. About 5 minutes later I spotted a car matching the description offered by the neighbour. I saw three men, the car, numerous items covered by a tarpaulin – we had our bad guys. I had my offsider pull our car in front of theirs and I got out. Not knowing their intentions and potential for danger I withdrew my firearm and aimed it directly at the driver. I will never forget the look of absolute dread as his face turned white and his jaw lowered. All the time I was screaming at this man to turn off the engine, to not do anything stupid and to then put his hands where I could see them. I was communicating with him in many ways – my body language, my voice, my presence. However, I’m sure, if you asked him, the thing that spoke the loudest was the gun pointed at him.
In many ways I was as scared as he was. The communication was going both ways. Just before I alighted from my car, I saw him look to each side as if he was looking to drive away. I also feared he might drive directly at me. So yes, the communication was going thick and fast…both ways.
This situation was resolved peacefully. All three men surrendered without incident and we recovered a stolen historic vehicle and $25,000 worth of personal belongings. All three received jail sentences.
I use this example to highlight the fact that there are so many ways we can communicate when we are face to face. But when we are online, communication is difficult. Nuances in language, emotion and intensity of feeling become difficult, and sometimes impossible to deliver purely with the written word.
I am reminded of Elder Oaks talk in October 2014 Conference. I was impressed with some of his remarks that sought to temper the discourse regarding same sex marriage. I believe his comments are applicable in this discussion. This is a selection of what he said:
“In dedicated spaces, like temples, houses of worship, and our own homes, we should teach the truth and the commandments plainly and thoroughly as we understand them from the plan of salvation revealed in the restored gospel”.
“In public, what religious persons say and do involves other considerations”.
“On the subject of public discourse, we should all follow the gospel teachings to love our neighbor and avoid contention. Followers of Christ should be examples of civility. We should love all people, be good listeners, and show concern for their sincere beliefs. Though we may disagree, we should not be disagreeable. Our stands and communications on controversial topics should not be contentious. We should be wise in explaining and pursuing our positions and in exercising our influence. In doing so, we ask that others not be offended by our sincere religious beliefs and the free exercise of our religion. We encourage all of us to practice the Savior’s Golden Rule: “Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them” (Matthew 7:12)”.
“When our positions do not prevail, we should accept unfavorable results graciously and practice civility with our adversaries. In any event, we should be persons of goodwill toward all, rejecting persecution of any kind, including persecution based on race, ethnicity, religious belief or nonbelief, and differences in sexual orientation”.
I believe this to be sound advice. He is saying that in our own homes – go for your life, but in public, temper the discourse. I believe this counsel applies to our blog. He urges us to:
Love our neighbour – in a blogging environment we have lots of neighbours. The primary ones are the writer of the post and those that subsequently comment on them. Remember, however that many people do not comment – for one reason or another – and will be reading in the background with no overt indication of their presence. To love each other in this sense means to approach each situation with sensitivity and a desire to lift, not to drag down or demean. As a member of the blogging team here at Wheat and Tares, I do my best to create a post that is interesting and challenging. I’m not a professional writer, nor do I know everything. This is something I do because I love the way it challenges me and forces me to think outside my comfort zone – I don’t do it because I’m necessarily good at it!! So be kind to us (the bloggers) [1] and to each other (the commenters).
Avoid contention – this is a hard one. Feelings that you are right and the other person is wrong can lead to communication that is contentious. Having contention means to fight, to battle, to war. There are times when fighting for a cause is appropriate – an LDS blog is not such a cause.
Be civil – engaging in a civil way means to not engage in behaviour like name calling, ganging up on someone or attacking the person and not the argument.
Be good listeners – this is difficult as all we have to listen to are the words we type. No looking into someone’s face, no hearing the “way” something is said and no body language. Just the cold words. This makes listening in a blogging environment a longer and more complex process. Read, read and re-read a persons comment. Sometimes what the person didn’t say is just as important as what they did say. Put yourself in their shoes and really try to understand from their position.
Show concern – one of the least utilised tools in our communication back pocket is empathy. Simple and honest expressions of empathy show love, concern and a sense of connection with the other person. I have read people express feelings of sadness, dread, mental anguish, suicidal thoughts and fear on various blogs. We can’t fix those – but we can express concern through the language we use.
Not be disagreeable – being disagreeable seems to me to be as much of an attitude as it is a behaviour. Perhaps we know of people who just seen to disagree with anyone and everything. Take an argument on its merits. Open your mind to the possibility that there might just be something to it.
We should be wise in explaining our position – this is good advice. I believe it is saying that independent of what we actually say, we should be cognisant of – or be wise – as to the likely impact of our communication. The phrase “discretion is the better part of valour” applies here. Yes we should make a logical and well thought statement. Yes we should avoid fallacies. Yes we should use correct and expressive language. But we should also take into account the impact of our potential communication. Is it best to not say anything? Or to stay out of a particular exchange?
I was drawn to this blog due to the breadth of topics and the lively discussion. We have a positive and active group. Our blogging team are an eclectic bunch. Our commenters are passionate, smart and challenging. Our discussions are fantastic. Lets continue to make Wheat and Tares a blog where we have fun, chat about cool stuff and feel a real sense of community.
[1] By kind, I don’t mean be soft on us or anything like that. Just remember that are aren’t experts, professional writers or have PhD’s in the area that we are writing in (usually..!!)
Questions:
Are there any other pieces of advice that you think could make for a smoother interaction?
Would you like to see a post on a particular issue we haven’t covered?
Invitations:
To those who have never commented – we invite you to feel free to have a say on the next couple of posts. Don’t be shy!!!
To the other commenters – thanks for your input. Keep commenting!!!
Wheat & Tares 
Aussie, Great post and a good reminder for us to think about when we comment (or even create a blog entry).
I do think this can be very hard in the throes of a faith crisis. I certainly posted a few heated replies when I was really in what I felt was a free fall.
I do think the points you mention are worth us all re-visiting from time to time to check not only our intentions, but also how we can be perceived.
In 2 separate LDS oriented conversation boards I have seen some individuals that just really can’t see the difference between saying, “You are wrong” vs. “I see things different and here is how I see them.” They just feel it is terrible to put “In my opinion” in front of a statement. Even with coaching they just feel there is no need to “water down” their statement.
Enjoyed this.
Communication is very difficult online at times. Thanks for the reminders.
My civility often leaves when I am enraged. That gets me into trouble. The fine line between standing my ground, saying my piece, and not causing strife is tough. I don’t always win.
“There are times when fighting for a cause is appropriate – an LDS blog is not such a cause.”
I agree, but some of our readers may disagree with what is implied in this statement. We all participate on these blogs for different reasons. I participate because I need a personal intellectual outlet and it helps me feel I have a place in a church that is more diverse than the one I attend every week. I think most of our readers are here for the similar reasons.
But Elder Somebody counselled members to get out there an DEFEND the church on the internet, and I think some of our readers may be at least partially motivated by that counsel. While there is nothing wrong with coming here to defend the faith (we all advocate for our respective opinions), I think that those who defend the church (or their view of the church), need to understand that Book of Mormon-style sermons, bearing one’s testimony, or dogmatically citing GAs, are less effective ways of defending the faith (at least in a blogging setting.) Everybody here already knows these kinds of responses, and many of us come to this blog specifically to get away from those responses, looking for a safe place to discuss, doubt, think, hone apologetic arguments, and be taught and edified in less churchy ways.
I personally would welcome anyone who wanted to bear their testimony or deliver a Nephi-style sermon. I like the passion of the members and they need an outlet to defend the church in their own personal way just as much as others need an outlet to question and think in their own personal way. I think liberal members should be more patient with those who come here to dogmatically express conservative views. President Packer said that the bearing of testimony is primarily for the bearer. It is in bearing ones testimony that it is strengthened. So liberals should be gracious with those who want to dogmatically proclaim, bear testimony, etc., not because they agree, but because we lovingly provide a platform for people to strengthen their own views by allowing them a chance to articulate them however they feel they should.
But conservative members should also understand that they may be whistling in the wind, or worse, turning people off to the church, and that it would be much more effective if they could find a more apologetic or intellectual approach to defending the faith that would resonate with the intellectual nature of the blogging culture. I think Martin and others do a good job of communicating this way, even if they find themselves on the more conservative end of the spectrum here.
Each blog has it’s own internal rules and community moderation, aside from whatever is publicly stated in the commenting policy. I’m also a relative newcomer to the bloggernacle, and at the beginning I got eviscerated on some sites because I didn’t understand the general mindset of those who posted and commented there. I’ve since learned to avoid commenting on several, even if the posts are of great interest to me. It’s the unstated expectations that newcomers tend to violate, and the reaction can be severe when you cross those taboos.
Nate, it’s hard to suggest that commenters need to be more intellectual to match the tone of online blogs, because a lot of blogs aren’t necessarily on an intellectual bent. Many serve as online support groups – someone shares their experience and their angst, and then commenters rush all over themselves to empathize, sympathize, and otherwise seek solace in a common wound. You introduce a more intellectual, emotionally distant comment and you’re breaking the unspoken rule that the thread was meant for comfort and mourning, not cold analysis.
I really like W&T because it tends to steer away from the emotional end and more towards the intellectual. This allows people from a much bigger variety of backgrounds to discuss with less risk of emotional attacks. The natural drawback is less emotional support, but it works great for those of us who are looking for intellectual exercise instead of another emotional support group. However, discussing a religion that most of us are passionate about (on either side), will almost always eventually slip into the emotional sphere. Like Cat said, once that gut reaction is triggered, it’s hard to be wise and pull yourself away from the fray.
Mary Ann we love having you here!
A few years ago I found the bloggernacle and I read it religiously every morning and it saved me. Now I’m less in need amidst questions and I’ve landed back on my feet and I read it less/comment less, write in it more.
I think even I can improve my commenting. I love spirited discussion. I don’t like when it devolves into personal attacks.
Thank you all for commenting – and doing so in a civil and appropriate way!!!
AHH – good point about the faith crisis thing. Yes, people certainly value their LDS experience and to some it is everything. To then have a faith crisis can be absolutely shattering.
SRM – Many thanks
MA – Thanks for your comments also. That is why I like W&T too.
Cat – Thanks for your honesty. I think many of us have been in that position and when you look back at some comments I’ve made I can see that others (sometimes) have tempered their position to maintain the peace. Ultimately we are all here to help one another through the thick and thin.
Nate – a thoughtful and measured response. Perhaps I could have written that particular section better. I guess my mindset was that I see some people getting so worked up about a particular aspect of the gospel. My though was that if you feel so strongly about something, sure, have a yap about it on a blog, but actually do something real to facilitate change. I did this recently on an issue I feel strongly about. PS your thoughts on testimony bearing were very interesting.
KA – Thank you for your comments too. I love the spirited discussion also. It makes up for the anti-thought discussions in sunday school!!