The Ethics of Blogging
There are those who fear the blog. I know a numberof people who feel that blogs that discuss doctrinal issues are useless if not risky or even dangerous. I am aware that noone reading this is likely to feel this way, but I wonder if we consider the ethical implications of our words. My wife, for instance, though she actually likes this blog and doesn’t see anything inherently worng with blogging (I think she probably prefers it to playing Galactic Battlegrounds as a passtime.) , is one of those who thinks of bloggs as risky. It is always a temptation to think we are really creating new thinking or that we are approaching the gospel in a superior way, some way that most people aren’t prepared to see it, because we are involved in the particular sort of open dialogue the blog presents.
I do feel that the internet gives us opportunities to work out ideas and feelings by recieving feedback from others. At the same time, we have been asked by the brethren not to express our struggles of faith too publicly lest they become struggles of faith that others are not yet prepared to face. That is, while I believein freedom of thought and even in freedom of speech, I do not feel that all speech is timely. I am interested to know too things. First if you feel we have an ethical imperative to consider the effects of our writing generally, print or otherwise, on the lives and understanding of others, and second if there are specific ways that the blog either emphasizes this ethical imperative or tends to demonstrate that our expression should be unrestricted. I think by this point my own point of view, that we do have to take ethical ownership of everything we say, should be clear.
(LOL) I’m not the only one who got grief for playing Galactic Battlegrounds late into the night. Like you, I suspect my wife prefers blogging to that!
Comment by Clark Goble — 1/21/2005 @ 1:41 pm
I think a consideration has to be made for venue. There are many conversations that are not appropriate for Sunday School that are appropriate elsewhere. While I typically eschew delineating now heterodox 19th century Mormon beliefs at Splendid Sun, there are other venues where I go full throttle.
We are always responsible for our speech and there is an ethical responsibility to respect the decorum of a given venue. The internet makes accessible (or public) what appears empirically to be a small community discourse, but I believe choosing to participate at a certain venue is where the responsibility for any resultant “crisis of faith” lay.
Some might argue that we should limit our venues to Sunday School, and that may be sufficient for many. However, I believe that the primacy of all truth is consistent with Mormon theology and that free discourse can mediate a comprehension of it.
Steve: …we have been asked by the brethren not to express our struggles of faith too publicly lest they become struggles of faith that others are not yet prepared to face.
I can see why one might say this, but has anyone actually come out and said it?
Comment by J. Stapley — 1/21/2005 @ 1:48 pm
“At the same time, we have been asked by the brethren not to express our struggles of faith too publicly lest they become struggles of faith that others are not yet prepared to face.”
Could you point to a source or two for this assertion? Thanks.
Comment by Kristine — 1/23/2005 @ 5:40 am
Kristine: I posed the same question to Steve as you did. It looks like he must be on the beach, enjoying the Hawaiian sun. I did a quick search and found a couple of references. I don’t know if Steve was speaking with something in mind or from a general perception of Mormon culture. The Maxwell citation was used my Millet, so I included his as well, even though he is not one of “the brethren”.
Comment by J. Stapley — 1/23/2005 @ 3:48 pm
Since I tend to speculate a fair bit, I have been worried about this idea too. I think the forum one is in,a nd the audience that comes with it certainly changes what one feels comfortable saying. For instance, whenever I see someone coming to some of my posts from a strong fundamentalist site, I get nervous. What are they going to think? Will this fuel stereotypes they have? Because I don’t make attempt to make things intelligible from diverse view points, I think this worry is valid. Hoepefully though, a lack of flashing crosses, neon pink proof text quotes and 1-900 prayer line number will cause many to loose interest.
On the other side, it is nice to have a reason to follow thoughts through before inevitable interruptions bury them. Of course the publicity required for this motivation has a price. Many things will get taken out of context. However, I think the biggest concern is the confidence interval people ascribe to posts. Like most people I rarely say “this post has a 30% chance of being useful.” Nor do I say that the 20 thoughts antecedent to it also had this error, making the likely hood of this post being true as close to zero as Lord Kelvin could get up in the laser cooled helium confines of Ituktiyuktuk. But, I think most intelligent people see these types of blogs as more attempts to see what happens from a different persepective than as attempts to delineate orthodoxy. Unfortunately, in my experience, there are also many people who have quite a bit of difficulty dealing with abstract (formal) operations. Thus, even if you were to say, “this is a hypothetical”, they still have trouble treating it that way. Which brings me back to my original point, I am 30% confident that speculation, while leading to few absolutes, does tend to keep one open to the certainty of their own ignorance.
Comment by chris g — 1/23/2005 @ 7:12 pm
Welcome aboard, Stephen. It is certainly the case that anyone on the LDS payroll has to be especially concerned with discretion when making public comments. Regular members, including bloggers, have less to be concerned with, I think. I note that The Ensign has taken to running what purport to be actual experiences of individual Mormons (written by “Name Withheld”) with problems like addiction or same-sex attraction, so plainly the Brethren feel like such topics can and even should be addressed in public discourse. Better in magazines or in blogs than over the pulpit at F&T meeting.
Comment by Dave — 1/24/2005 @ 9:46 am
J and K,
Is the implication that the sun is luring me away from the blog, or that it has fired my brian? =) Thanks again to J who brings up particluarly the maxwell quote. I am a big fan of Maxwell, and this comment seems representative of his attitude. In a broader context, beyond doubt specifically to anything we might say while blogging,:
Some of us may be inclined to study the word with the idea in mind that we must add much where the Lord has said little! Those who would “add upon” could well be guided by the anchor question: Do my writings, comments, or observations build faith and strengthen testimonies? Oftentimes we can cause confusion and misdirection in our lives and in the lives of others if we promote the startling and unorthodox. Feeble knees are strengthened by those who lead with purpose rather than with personal interpretations.
Marvin J. Ashton Oct 1991 Conf.
Also, there is an interesting chapter in elder Packer’s Let Not Your Heart Be Not Troubled on writing LDS history that seems relevant to the discussion.
Dave,
The split between regular members and those “on the LDS payroll” seems to be a bit specious. If we assume that the purpose of my post was to ask what is most conducive to the spiritual well-being of both the writer and those reading, then who pays my bills is of minimal importance. The implicaiton is that my employer wants to inhibit truth and progression in some way. It may sound overly idealistic (what else should we be?) but I write whatever I do considering the effect it might have on the spiritual well0being of myself and others, I would like to think. It is considering my own well-being and that of others that might one day make me actually qualified for the job I try to do, but the cooincidence between my goals and those of my employer do not imply that I pursue them for the paycheck.
Comment by Stephen Hancock — 1/24/2005 @ 1:08 pm
I, mostly a lurker, appreciate this (and other blogs) that “work out ideas and feelings”.
Some of the struggles match mine and I’m eager to know how others have worked it out. In all cases, though, I file the information in the “could be true” portion of my brain and continue my search for truth. – Keep up the good work.
Comment by daylan — 1/24/2005 @ 1:38 pm
Steve: “The split between regular members and those ‘on the LDS payroll’ seems to be a bit specious”
There are those who empirically affirm that the split is not specious. I don’t want to delve into specifics, but you were at BYU in the early 90’s.
Comment by J. Stapley — 1/24/2005 @ 2:46 pm
J,
I can only say that there isn’t anything I wouldn’t say because I work at a church school that I would have any reason to say if I did not, simply because I would feel the same ethical obligations whether or not I was employed here. that is not to say anything particular about partciular cases, something I would not do because there are real people involved who know the situation more than I do, and because I feel an ethical obligation not to say anything about it. I’ve “heard things,” but that’s far from knowing anything. I can only speak for myself and say that I’ve never felt unduely restrained by my position and that any restriction I think there might be is one that we should probably consider on other grounds as well. That is to say that there might be these very ethical reasons not to say certain things.
Daylan,
I really think your idea is quite important, though we might take it for granted. We are only obligated to believe what has been revealed (Does anyone know the reference for that? I’m bad at keeping track of my reading, so I often have a particular quotation in mind, but I can’t remember the source, though I like to still acknowledge that the idea isn’t mine.) and I think it’s a good idea to be ready to revise the rest of it. I also think that we should never take our own ideas on things that aren’t too clear too seriously and not expect others to jump on board as if we were sure that we’d figured out anything they couldn’t find elsewhere and should really have.
Comment by Stephen Hancock — 1/24/2005 @ 3:21 pm
I used to believe that there wouln’t be anything I wouldn’t say because of context, but I a not sure, if for me, that is true any more. I think it is impossible not to at least modify the way things get presented depending upon who you are talking to. Personally, that is one of the reasons I appreciate many of the posts here. In relation to the GA quotes, I think a lot of what happens isn’t doubting per se, but more iinvestigating. I also think the purpose of the investigations may be less about filling blan voids in theology than it is about figuring out a useful world view.
Comment by chris g — 1/25/2005 @ 8:28 am
Chris,
I absolutely agree that context is everything. I’ve been pounded with enough rhetorical theory in graduate school to be completely unable to forget that audience is very important. In fact, I think that is sort of the basis for my concern with ethics–knowing when it is appropriate to say what. My comment was merely menat to say that certain considerations were not my major concern (paycheck), although it strikes me that I may not be being fair to Dave. The fact that I work at a church school could certainly affect the way people read my comments, and in that sense, I guess being on the chuch payroll could affect what I say. For instance, someone who was very influenced by a BYUH education or who really wants to attend a church school (or who is standoffish towards a church school) might read my comments as being representative of the viewpoints of church educators, and so I should be careful to take that into consideration. English professors in this sense might not be as cautious as, say religion professors who, in the eyes of some, are sort of quasi-ecclesiastical, though I don’t know that most of my friends in that department think of themselves in that way.
I like your point about world-views. I thik all of us have to sort of come to som4ehting that makes sense for us, given what we are obligated to accept as truth. I’m not sure we always separate that clearly from finding truth which we are then willing to proport as truth.
Finally, as far as doubt, I don’t think that doubt itself is the big issue, though I mention it in the original post. Marvin J. Ashton has said:
So it seems to me your point about venue is precisely the point. There are some things that it is imperative we share but that it might not be good to tell everyone, doubts and transgressions might go into this category together, for instance. I’m wondering about how we make these decisions, and, especially, what the implications of blogging are. I’d like to know if anyone has drawn any lines or has any maxims or rules of thum for what is bloggable (or usable in any other context) and what is not.
Comment by Stephen Hancock — 1/25/2005 @ 10:38 am
I’d like to know if anyone has drawn any lines or has any maxims or rules of thum for what is bloggable … and what is not.
One rule of thumb I have heard is, “Would I want my mother to read this?” 😉
Comment by Grasshopper — 1/25/2005 @ 4:55 pm
Stephen I’m not sure we always separate that clearly from finding truth which we are then willing to proport as truth
I like the way you stated this. Along similar lines I wonder if part of the tension comes because some people look for snippets of truth as a way to anchor their world view while others look for those same snippets as an eventual way to fundamentally change their world view. The latter assumes that people will continually reform ideas. Thus they may be less inclined to fret over superficial discrepencies. And so confusion may arise as the underlying purpose behind the two investigatative styles does not seem to commute well. Obviously there is a fair bit of middle ground, but I think much of the context is lost. Which gets back to the point of venue, which is obviously hard to answer.
As for what is bloggable here are some of what I go by (or more accuratley what I could go by)
-always leave a couple options open for possible interpretations. There seldom seems to be only one valid way to take an idea. While authoritative presentations are easier, they don’t make the point any more valid.
-don’t leave controversial topics hanging. While they are great comment generators, it is nice to have a plausible solution presented. It also usually helps to contextualize the problem.
-there should always be a long term constructive goal behind ideas. Tearing things down to see what remains will never build anything. Having to figure out a reasonable replacement seems to get rid of rose colored glasses.
Sorry, no specifics.
Comment by chris g — 1/25/2005 @ 5:41 pm
Very interesting post and discussion. I like grasshopper’s litmus test of having his mother read it. (My mom does read mine) But, I think the better person to have in mind is Heavenly Father. Is our conscience clear on believing that He approves of the things that we share and where? I’ve always tried to keep my audience in mind and what my ultimate blogging goals are.
Comment by Nettie — 9/7/2006 @ 11:24 am
I didn’t know the brethren asked us not to discuss our problems publicly.
With me, almost everything is public. I talk about stuff with the grocery lady.
Perhaps I am screwed.
Comment by annegb — 9/10/2006 @ 12:38 pm