Is The Internet Good Or Bad For The Church?

[Sky]

Is the internet a good thing or a bad thing for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Or somewhere in between? The critics like to paint a pretty bleak picture, but surely it can't be all bad. We've all heard stories about people reading about things they did not know before, and then feeling like the Church lied to them, and subsequently losing their faith. Or about somebody not getting baptized because of something they read on the internet. Has that been your experience, too? Has anybody's faith been strengthened through the internet? I would like to hear some more positive experiences that people have had with regards to Mormonism and the internet. In my opinion, just because one reads negative information about Mormonism online, it does not have to necessarily result in a crisis of faith. One of the most exciting things that we have to look forward to, both critic and apologist alike, is the Joseph Smith Papers Project that the Church is working on.

[noel00]

I think you church has some smart people who somehow know how to use the internet search engines for their advantage. Do a Google on "Mormon Criticisms" and see most apologetic sites turn up first. I think this site's name was changed to match mormon*****.***. Type this word in and this site also comes up nearby in a Google search to Mormondiscussions.

[why me]

The internet had not been a plus for the lds church. Once a member finds a critic site or if someone interested in mormonism finds a critic site, doubts begins to surface. This is not in all cases but I do believe that it is in many cases. The problem with the official lds site is that it doesn't address the concerns of members who have been shocked by critic sites. And FAIR cannot compete with the deluge of antimormon sites out there in cyberworld.

And this has nothing to do with search engines since critic sites are found and read either by surfing or by word of mouth.

[Evangeline]

I can't say enough how grateful I am for the FAIR/FARMS scholars. They have done FANTASTIC work. Daniel Peterson, Kerry Shirts (aka Backyard Professor) and others too many to name: YOU PEOPLE ROCK!!!!! I can't get enough of the positive, faith-affirming, mind-blowing ideas you bring to the table.

If you're looking for stuff to fill your soul with joy and peace and light, you'll find it. I have learned so much to build my faith through the internet.

Thanks to all the scholars who make my life richer!!

[Buzzard]

So which critic sites are really threats to the church? The ones I have stumbled across are so strident and inflammatory that someone who was honestly searching would have to be more than a little put off. If you balanced those who have left the church because of what they found on the internet against those who have at least developed an initial interest in the church because of the internet, I suspect that the numbers would surprise us.

Now, internet pornography, that I view as almost an existential threat to the church. A good friend I have in a BYU bishopric tells me he is blown away by the number of both young men and women with serious porn issues-and these are all active, ecclesiastically endorsed BYU students. Among those struggling with the decision whether to stay active in the church, I don't even want to think how bad it might be.

[selek1]

I suspect that- as with any other tool- it depends upon how it is used.

Through the internet, the Church has the potential to reach and teach many millions more on any given day.

Also, through the internet, critics and apostates may also reach many millions more than they would otherwise.

If the Church and the faithful were to surrender the field to the enemy, then it would be a weapon against us.

As things stand, the internet is neither bane nor boon.

It must be further noted- it is not the arguments on MADB that convert, nor the General Conference talks posted on LDS.org, nor the less-than-stable rantings at the Shady Rest that convert or deconvert.

It is the receptiveness of the individual to the Spirit of the Lord that makes Saints- not web pages and infographics.

[Evergrow]

Good and bad as with everything else in life. And as with everything else in life, there is often more bad then there is the good.

There is like many more ignorant and with contempt of the Church because of our enemy's than there are those who are able to read beyond the malarkey for the actual truth and may or may not convert.

I mean, how many have actually really studied FAIR? Likely few. But many have read whatever anti-mormon websites etc., and even less have directly compared the two for true objectivity.

[noel00]

The internet can be used for things that impact Mormon claims but make no mention of the Mormons

eg

http://tcmam.wordpre...ans-use-wheels/

The wheel is mentioned. Other searches can involve searching for origins of horses and other animals brought to America

Also the origin of the American Indians

http://voices.yahoo....gin-694240.html

"

According to Gibson; "Ancestors of the American Indian may have reached the New World from several directions at various times in the past, but evidence mustered thus far strongly supports the thesis that the first important access into the western Hemisphere was from Asia via Beringia. This archaeological evidence from eastern Siberia, Alaska, and along the ice free corridor into North America's continental interior indicates that Beringia was the principal sources of migration."

Gibson further quotes evidence that Archaeologists have found artifacts that trace the migration route through the Bering Straits. However, it possible there is missing evidence yet to be discovered. Moreover, these artifacts could have been disrupted by the glacier movements. This occurred in New England. Many Indian artifacts that were found in this area were damaged or miss dated due to glacier movements."

Edited April 3, 2012 by noel00

[KevinG]

The internet is good the same way papyrus, paper and movable type are good for the church.

What people do with the internet is a more complex question, but Family History and keeping in touch with extended family are two huge +s. Pornography and anti-Mormon websites are the down side.

[why me]

So which critic sites are really threats to the church? The ones I have stumbled across are so strident and inflammatory that someone who was honestly searching would have to be more than a little put off. If you balanced those who have left the church because of what they found on the internet against those who have at least developed an initial interest in the church because of the internet, I suspect that the numbers would surprise us.

I think what happens is rather simple. A faithful member surfs the internet to find out information about Joseph Smith or Brigham Young. Suddenly, a host of sites appear that are critical of both men. The member reads these sites and becomes shocked by what is written. They continue to surf and discover more sites with more information that is not positive about these men or other informational points that were unknown for the member. The shock lingers and then the surfer goes back to check again and comes across more sites with real people telling their terrible stories while they were in the young and how they felt lied to. They read the pain and anger. More shock.

This happens quite a lot, I believe.

[why me]

I can't say enough how grateful I am for the FAIR/FARMS scholars. They have done FANTASTIC work. Daniel Peterson, Kerry Shirts (aka Backyard Professor) and others too many to name: YOU PEOPLE ROCK!!!!! I can't get enough of the positive, faith-affirming, mind-blowing ideas you bring to the table.

If you're looking for stuff to fill your soul with joy and peace and light, you'll find it. I have learned so much to build my faith through the internet.

Thanks to all the scholars who make my life richer!!

I agree with this. However, in this modern age, we need a site like the catholic apologetics site. It is informational and quite interesting. The down side to the catholic site is that they allow catholics to post negatives about other faiths in mocking ways in their discussion forum. But the information on the site about catholicism is very good and eye catching. And it is meant to impress.

LDS apologetics need to upgrade their site to catch the eye with unique features and information.

Edited April 3, 2012 by why me

[Storm Rider]

The internet has always been a two edged sword. There is no one that ensures that what is found is accurate or correct; it just exists for all to read should they choose.

We can find anything we want to find on the internet. It is like a good car; I can use it to attend to my affairs and it makes achieving them much easier. However, there are some who will take a car and wrecklessly endanger the their own lives as well as the lives of others. We may learn to drive defensively, but there are some roads we should not take.

We have to learn to choose wisely. The Church is attempting to proclaim the truths of the restored church of Jesus Christ. Others, directed by Satan, seek to destroy all that is good and true. We, as in all people, must learn to decide where we will spend our time. In addition, we must never lose faith that the Holy Spirit can cut through the most heinous of anti-Mormon literature with but a single touch to the heart.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Is the internet a good thing or a bad thing for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Members who are currently enjoying the blessings of the Restored Gospel -- inspiration, forgiveness of sins, the lightening of heavy burdens, changes to their fundamental natures by means of the Atonement, peace, personal revelation, specific answers to prayers, the power of the priesthood, the ministration of angels, the power of the temple, visions, etc. -- will respond to critical material on the internet the same way that people who regularly use electric lights would respond to claims that Edison was a fraud and that people only think incandescent lightglobes work. On the other hand, those who are already chafing in their discipleship will find plenty of readily available justifications for exiting stage left.

Or about somebody not getting baptized because of something they read on the internet. Has that been your experience, too?

My only personal experience in this vein came a few years ago when the missionaries asked if they could teach an investigator in my home. Usually, after each discussion, she would stay back after the Elders had left to talk more to me. As she got closer to baptism, I asked her point-blank if she'd done any reading of anti- materials on the net. She said she hadn't, so I recommended that she have a look around and come back with any questions or concerns. I even recommended a couple of sites by name. She didn't bring anything up to the missionaries during the next discussion, so afterward I asked her about it. She said she'd spent a couple of evenings perusing a number of sites but that none of it synced with her experiences, so it all pretty much left her flat.

On another note, we had a senior couple in my mission who'd previously served at one of the Church's vistors centres. They said they always knew when the one-man ministry wasn't doing his normal job of handing out tracts across the street because drop-in guests to the centre would be less interested in learning more. I experienced a similar phenomenon as a missionary. In one area, I'd spent three months labouring in vain, but then a 'counter-cult' expert moved into town and took out some ads in the local newspaper, and immediately we found people more interested in us. In the next two months, we taught and baptised two families. In another area, my companion and I had set up a display board on the Book of Mormon in a subway station one morning, but the busy commuters completely ignored us until a man in a wheelchair on the opposite platform started shouting out that we were deceived. Immediately, we had interest. If the internet is in any way raising curiosity about 'Mormonism', it's a good thing.

Has anybody's faith been strengthened through the internet?

I personally love all the information and material which are now readily available to me via the internet. For someone who lives thousands and thousands of kilometres away from the nearest Deseret Book, it seems like a miracle to be able to access online so many Church publications. I love Mormon Messages on YouTube, too, and the new Bible videos. And don't get me started about the manna from heaven it is to have ready access to General Conference!

I can only imagine what happens in the spiritually sensitive if they ever surf between sites operated by the Church and many of its members and those maintained by our critics. They would FEEL the difference immediately. In this, I'm reminded of my time doing my masters study in America. Every fortnight, a mate from Church (a PhD student in physics) and I would drive to the temple in Chicago to do a couple of endowment sessions and usually also some sealings or initiatory work. We would leave filled with love, joy, peace, patience, etc. Then we would head to a restaurant near the temple called TGI Friday's to eat some ribs. The restaurant was filled with drinkers talking loudly over numerous TVs, and the contrast was like a slap in the face which only served to highlight what we'd just experienced. And most of the critical sites I've been to feel more like a basement bar full of angry drunks than a proper restaurant.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Hamba Tuhan

[zerinus]

Is the internet a good thing or a bad thing for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Or somewhere in between?

The Internet is not "bad" for anybody.

[Cobalt-70]

The internet was good for the church about a decade ago, but is very bad now and in the short term. In the long term, it will be very good.

Here's what I mean: When internet use first became widespread, the church used it for great purposes, such as spreading access to General Conference, providing a site for the Mormon version of the scriptures, and making family history about 100 times easier.

However, for the last half a decade, a huge amount of historical information about the LDS Church and early Mormonism has been placed on the internet, and most of it is very different from what Mormons have been taught, and from what missionaries are teaching. Previously, the church relied on the fact that information about Mormon history, and its deeper doctrines, was hard to get, so that by the time new members found out about certain things, their testimonies were solid enough to handle it. Mormons described it as "milk before meat"--in other words, you hide the more challenging information from new members until they are ready to handle it. That's not possible any more.

The picture may seem bleak, but I think we can have hope for the long term. Shining a bright light upon our own history and doctrines forces us to reevaluate what it means to be Mormon. Maybe some of the things that we thought were so important actually aren't. We start to figure out ways to build a less fragile Mormonism--a Mormonism that doesn't depend on its leaders being infallible or even always admirable. A Mormonism based less on the adoration of fallible prophets, or on historicizing its beautiful mythology, and more on a personal relationship between the Mormon and her God, her family, and her ancestors. Once we get past our own history, the internet will be an incredible boon to Mormonism. Fifty years down the road, I see a Mormonism that has the potential to spread across the internet like wildfire.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[thesometimesaint]

Overall I think it is a good thing. But like everything in this world it can be used for evil as well as good.

[CV75]

Is the internet a good thing or a bad thing for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Or somewhere in between? The critics like to paint a pretty bleak picture, but surely it can't be all bad. We've all heard stories about people reading about things they did not know before, and then feeling like the Church lied to them, and subsequently losing their faith. Or about somebody not getting baptized because of something they read on the internet. Has that been your experience, too? Has anybody's faith been strengthened through the internet? I would like to hear some more positive experiences that people have had with regards to Mormonism and the internet. In my opinion, just because one reads negative information about Mormonism online, it does not have to necessarily result in a crisis of faith. One of the most exciting things that we have to look forward to, both critic and apologist alike, is the Joseph Smith Papers Project that the Church is working on.

I beleive that without the Internet, people would replace their attraction to or distrcation from the truth with something else, just like they did before. I beleive those who are suddenly "enlightened" against the Church would have otherwise been "enlightened," engaged in sin or remained "less-valiant." I beleive my faith has increased with the access to information and the ease of study the Internet brings. The discussions on this board have supplemented my personal study and helped me to become more faithful.

[cinepro]

I can't believe there is even a discussion.

If we were to make a list of the worst things to happen to the Church in the last 182 years, the list would look like this:

1. The Internet

2. The Internet

3. The Internet

4. Everything else put together (mob violence, apostatizing apostles, Reed Smoot hearings, The Godmakers, etc.)

The Church may survive the internet, and like a cancer survivor, we may feel "stronger" for having done so. But ultimately, we will end up being the Lance Armstrong of churches, having survived, but at the cost of part of our testicles and brain.

This comparison is in poor taste Cinepro. -Ares

Edited April 3, 2012 by Ares

[why me]

I beleive that without the Internet, people would replace their attraction to or distrcation from the truth with something else, just like they did before. I beleive those who are suddenly "enlightened" against the Church would have otherwise been "enlightened," engaged in sin or remained "less-valiant." I beleive my faith has increased with the access to information and the ease of study the Internet brings. The discussions on this board have supplemented my personal study and helped me to become more faithful.

I think that you are right. But there are members who go to the internet in innocence and suddenly read critic sites about what Brigham said and what Joseph said and our suddenly shocked because of the interpretation that is given. What is unknown to these members is: such things were read in the past in a book called the Journal of Discourses and and this book was in many members libraries without much fanfare. Likewise, some of the quotations by Joseph were also published in a couple of books called the The Words of Joseph Smith and The Teachings of Joseph Smith and sat in member libraries without much of a stir.

It is the critic interpretation that the members can't seem to handle.

[KevinG]

However, for the last half a decade, a huge amount of historical information about the LDS Church and early Mormonism has been placed on the internet...

Not to mention a great deal of hysterical information.

[wenglund]

In principle, the question of the OP is like asking whether technology in general has been good or bad for humanity. Different people may answer differently depending upon whether they tend to be pessimists or optimist, or whether they consider things on balance or selectively, and whether they are informed or not.

More to the point, I am not sure what value may be derived from posing the question or formulating answers since the Internet is here whether we like it or not.

The better question to me, then, is whether we, individually and collectively, are utilizing the Internet to good or bad. At least this is something we can control for ourselves.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

I think that you are right. But there are members who go to the internet in innocence and suddenly read critic sites about what Brigham said and what Joseph said and our suddenly shocked because of the interpretation that is given. What is unknown to these members is: such things were read in the past in a book called the Journal of Discourses and and this book was in many members libraries without much fanfare. Likewise, some of the quotations by Joseph were also published in a couple of books called the The Words of Joseph Smith and The Teachings of Joseph Smith and sat in member libraries without much of a stir.

It is the critic interpretation that the members can't seem to handle.

This is an important point. Coming across and reading that which is in a faithful member’s library and with his guidance and explanation is a very different experience than coming across and reading the same book in an infidel’s library and getting an earful of his twist. Unless one is firmly grounded in testimony, he may well be shocked. Being thus firmly grounded, in my opinion, includes the ability to prioritize real, live interpersonal relationships, discussions and experiences over the electronic.

Innocence is an admirable qaulity. Many innocent LDS come across potentially spiritually compromising situations and are protected from doubt, temptation and sinning because they are prepared with discernment and/or faith in prophetic or parental counsel. Otherwise they learn the hard way, which is a part of the Gospel plan also. Even the innocent know these are dangerous times spiritually and those who access any source of information or intellectual exchange (real or virtual) need to be “wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.”

There are those who are as careful with perusing the Internet as they are collecting and studying their tangible libraries. Those who do either casually are susceptible to their own or others’ deceit.

But beneath it all is one's orientation and susceptibility to light or darkness, no matter how they encounter them.

[CV75]

In principle, the question of the OP is like asking whether technology in general has been good or bad for humanity.

Beleiving it is a function of the Spirit's enlightenment, I think technology is intended to be be good for humanity. But it is applied individually and those choices behind its use are what is good or bad for either humanity.or for individuals. Those same kinds of choices are made in non-technological contexts as well and are what is good or bad for either humanity.or for individuals.

[Mudcat]

Not speaking as an LDS, but I think the net has opened up some unfortunate opportunities in some respects.

Primarily, open criticism is more readily availabe to anyone. Of course this has also opened the door for readily available apologetics. But in general people seem to focus more .. or at least focus first on what they percieve as bad news.

Also, the net has created areas where exbelievers or believers in doubt can congregate. Supporting each other in their unbelief. I think this would make it difficult in assisting someone back into a believing scenario. The edge that the saftey net of social support that churches can offer has been dulled by this I think.

Like Selek had said, the net is just a tool. How it's used is whats important. I have found it to be useful for research purposes and also for bringing me in touch with a number of people with a keen interest in their faith.

Though, I think Christianity in general has not been helped by the net. The information that would lead a person from faith rather than to it is much more abundant. It has made sin that much more accessable. Net porn has destroyed families and individuals, online gambling has done the same and so on.

[CV75]

Not speaking as an LDS, but I think the net has opened up some unfortunate opportunities in some respects.

Primarily, open criticism is more readily availabe to anyone. Of course this has also opened the door for readily available apologetics. But in general people seem to focus more .. or at least focus first on what they percieve as bad news.

Also, the net has created areas where exbelievers or believers in doubt can congregate. Supporting each other in their unbelief. I think this would make it difficult in assisting someone back into a believing scenario. The edge that the saftey net of social support that churches can offer has been dulled by this I think.

Like Selek had said, the net is just a tool. How it's used is whats important. I have found it to be useful for research purposes and also for bringing me in touch with a number of people with a keen interest in their faith.

Though, I think Christianity in general has not been helped by the net. The information that would lead a person from faith rather than to it is much more abundant. It has made sin that much more accessable. Net porn has destroyed families and individuals, online gambling has done the same and so on.

I think this is only a different form of or vehicle for spiritual malaise than that which existed before the Internet, albeit with the same damning effects. Instead of actively congregating in their error, people just slipped into a more private expression of faithlessness, hypocrisy and inactivity. The full-blown apostates and critics also found a way to cultivate an audience. They may feel they are more effective or expressive with the Internet as a tool, but the spiritual dynamics are pretty much the same and are a function of individual response to the Light of Christ, with the same reward. We have been taught that the world will become more wicked as the Lord's kingdom prepares for His triumphant return, by all means withing our grasp.