Is The Internet Good Or Bad For The Church?

[Sky]

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-

I agree with a lot of this statement, Wade.

But I posed the question in order to try and get an alternative perspective to the commonly held notion that the internet is near fatal to the faith of the Latter-day Saints. In my opinion, we don’t hear enough stories from believers about how they encountered critical information and overcame it. I thought it was worth asking.

One of my observations about the internet is that the Mormon detractors seem to rule the roost. They seem to outnumber the defenders as well as having the louder voices. When an investigator or church member encounters this barrage of information online, they are not likely able to fully differentiate between the good and the bad and the truth from error. I don’t have it totally figured out yet either. So we defenders have to make our voices count, and perhaps more accessible. This board is a safe place to be able to defend the Church, and I’m grateful for that.

Also, if we are already predisposed to believe or disbelieve in the first place, that will also play a large role in where we go to find further answers online.

[Sky]

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.

Thanks for sharing your perspective. It's good to realize that this issue isn't unique only to Mormonism.

[Pahoran]

I can't believe there is even a discussion.

Evidently there's a lot you can't believe.

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.)

So you suppose the internet has done the Church more harm than the state-sponsored pogroms of the 19th century?

You desperately need to sort out your priorities.

The internet, as others have noted, is a two-edged sword. It gives every crank a soap box and every demagogue a bully pulpit. It flatters short attention spans, and so lends itself to tabloidesque sensationalism and the dissemination of sound-bites that distort rather than inform.

There is a section of the population with whom a kind of "Gresham's law" in the realm of ideas applies. They avidly swallow any distortion, however preposterous, if it's juicy or titillating enough.

However, for the pure in heart, the wise, the noble and the virtuous, the truth is always more valuable. And so as the Church takes charge of telling its own story and countering the lies of the vicious little hate-based "ministries" who make their living by slandering the Saints, the truth increasingly comes to the fore, and will ultimately prevail. Indeed, Noel00's resentful sniping is a sign that it is prevailing already.

The Church may survive the internet,

Oh, you can take that to the bank.

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.

You are speaking for yourself, I take it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[cinepro]

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

I'm pretty sure the OP is asking whether or not the internet has been good or bad for one specific corporation: The Church Of Jesus Chris of Latter-day Saints.

[cinepro]

The internet, as others have noted, is a two-edged sword. It gives every crank a soap box and every demagogue a bully pulpit. It flatters short attention spans, and so lends itself to tabloidesque sensationalism and the dissemination of sound-bites that distort rather than inform.

There is a section of the population with whom a kind of "Gresham's law" in the realm of ideas applies. They avidly swallow any distortion, however preposterous, if it's juicy or titillating enough.

The internet is damaging to the Church for two reasons:

1. Easy access to pornography

2. Easy access to clearly presented, in-context information that is damaging to the Church.

I hope I'm wrong and that the internet will prove to be a net neutral or positive influence on the growth of the Church and the faith of its members, but based on the first ~15 years of the internet's existence, I'm not counting on it.

[KevinG]

The internet is damaging to the Church for two reasons:

1. Easy access to pornography

2. Easy access to clearly presented, in-context information that is damaging to the Church.

I hope I'm wrong and that the internet will prove to be a net neutral or positive influence on the growth of the Church and the faith of its members, but based on the first ~15 years of the internet's existence, I'm not counting on it.

What in-context information is damaging to the church that is available because of the internet (and was not available before the internet)?

This should be good...

[Cobalt-70]

The internet is damaging to the Church for two reasons:

1. Easy access to pornography

2. Easy access to clearly presented, in-context information that is damaging to the Church.

I hope I'm wrong and that the internet will prove to be a net neutral or positive influence on the growth of the Church and the faith of its members, but based on the first ~15 years of the internet's existence, I'm not counting on it.

Pornography does not damage the church itself, except to the extent that the church miscalibrates the delicate balance between encouraging people not to view porn, and causing such a guilt trip that otherwise faithful and productive members are driven away from church activity.

In the long run, the flood of uncensored information about church history is only damaging to the church to the extent that the church (1) fails to honestly, squarely, and credibly address its own history, or (2) fails to accept responsibility for the mistakes of its adored leaders, or admit that such mistakes occurred. Any political candidate knows that your mistakes will remain a news item unless you acknowledge them, and it usually takes more than one acknowledgement. I think the church PR people know this too. Take the example of vicarious baptism of Holocaust victims: after the church provided a heartfelt apology, coupled with concrete measures to ensure that it meant business, the issue has kind of evaporated. I don't think the church needs to apologize for its history (except arguably for its discrimination against blacks and its handling of the Mountain Meadows massacre), but I think we will soon be seeing some frank discussion and acknowledgement of the church's difficult historical issues.

[KevinG]

The main difference between parchment and pixels is the speed at which they can be formed and accessed. A great boon to those seeking the truth and those spreading rumors.

The problem with pornography is that it is easier to access in the privacy of our own homes than it ever was in the days when you had to go somewhere to buy it. Imagine the problems with alcoholism if a person could open a spigot in their bedroom and pour themselves a drink.

The sorting process is quickening - that is certain.

[zerinus]

I agree with a lot of this statement, Wade.

But I posed the question in order to try and get an alternative perspective to the commonly held notion that the internet is near fatal to the faith of the Latter-day Saints. In my opinion, we don’t hear enough stories from believers about how they encountered critical information and overcame it. I thought it was worth asking.

One of my observations about the internet is that the Mormon detractors seem to rule the roost. They seem to outnumber the defenders as well as having the louder voices. When an investigator or church member encounters this barrage of information online, they are not likely able to fully differentiate between the good and the bad and the truth from error. I don’t have it totally figured out yet either. So we defenders have to make our voices count, and perhaps more accessible. This board is a safe place to be able to defend the Church, and I’m grateful for that.

Also, if we are already predisposed to believe or disbelieve in the first place, that will also play a large role in where we go to find further answers online.

Mormonism has encountered far greater opposition in times past than it is experiencing today (Internet or otherwise). It has always been strengthened by opposition and adversity in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. The opposition the Church is experiencing on the Internet today is small compared to what she was experiencing in print and the national press a hundred years ago.

[Mark Beesley]

If the Church relied on being able to control what information reaches people in order to fulfil its divine commission, then the internet could be viewed as a negative. However, the mission of the Church with respect to information is to make it available to people and then to let them seek confirmation of truth through the Holy Ghost. People who leave the Church or do not join the Church because of the internet do not do so because of information. They do so because of a lack of the Holy Ghost bearing witness to them of the truth.

I trust I have heard and read just about every scandalous claim made about the Church, and yet my testimony has not wavered. The witness of the Holy Ghost is more powerful and than any bit of information than anyone can post on the internet. The Holy Ghost enables one to look past all of the negativity and trust in the Lord. It enables one to be humble enough to admit that one does not have all of the answers to all of the questions that might arise, but that he does have the answer to the one question that really matters.

[CV75]

I agree with a lot of this statement, Wade.

But I posed the question in order to try and get an alternative perspective to the commonly held notion that the internet is near fatal to the faith of the Latter-day Saints. In my opinion, we don’t hear enough stories from believers about how they encountered critical information and overcame it. I thought it was worth asking.

One of my observations about the internet is that the Mormon detractors seem to rule the roost. They seem to outnumber the defenders as well as having the louder voices. When an investigator or church member encounters this barrage of information online, they are not likely able to fully differentiate between the good and the bad and the truth from error. I don’t have it totally figured out yet either. So we defenders have to make our voices count, and perhaps more accessible. This board is a safe place to be able to defend the Church, and I’m grateful for that.

Also, if we are already predisposed to believe or disbelieve in the first place, that will also play a large role in where we go to find further answers online.

I believe the faithful LDS are above even the Internet in defining their faith. The same dynamics are in play on-line as in real life. Everyone is responsible for handling the information and spin they come across intentionally, accidentally, or by way of imposition. There are discriminating and non-discriminating receivers of information, and no one can really help the non-discriminating web surfer if he insists on remaining non-discriminating.

The faithful know that while the loudest voices have to do with manipulating others’ way of thinking, the truth gets across to those who have ears to hear. Usually this is accomplished through the effective facilitation of the still small voice through whatever media is being used. We have been encouraged to join the conversation on this basis.

For example, the protestors outside the Conference Center rule the sidewalk, but who really needs to counter them on their level, supposing that the proceedings inside the Conference Center cannot speak for themselves?

[LDSToronto]

The internet, as others have noted, is a two-edged sword. It gives every crank a soap box and every demagogue a bully pulpit. It flatters short attention spans, and so lends itself to tabloidesque sensationalism and the dissemination of sound-bites that distort rather than inform.

It sure does.

H.

[Calm]

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

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 one of the problems of the internet is that information is much easier to access, but it comes without the spirit as that is much harder to communicate and share through text than it is face to face. And faith is something that is created in the presence of the Spirit, without the Spirit it withers and dies if it ever manages to be born in the first place.

[noel00]

There is a good book called The Brain the Changes Itself. There the neuroscientist argues that watching porn actually damages your brain and can cause impotence. Japan has 20% of the worlds porn and it's population is dropping. It stands to reason that if you are looking at a photoshopped pic of a woman for stimulation, rather then looking at your real wife who probably has some stretchmarks etc, then you might grow dependent on more and more explicit porn.

[Eldwynn]

There is a good book called The Brain the Changes Itself. There the neuroscientist argues that watching porn actually damages your brain and can cause impotence. Japan has 20% of the worlds porn and it's population is dropping. It stands to reason that if you are looking at a photoshopped pic of a woman for stimulation, rather then looking at your real wife who probably has some stretchmarks etc, then you might grow dependent on more and more explicit porn.

AS someone who is actively pursuing a PhD in Neuroscience at the University of Washington in Seattle, I have never heard of ANY study that supports the notion that watching porn causes impotence.

Can you please cite this?

I've also read the book you quoted (It's actually called The Brain that Changes Itself) and found his argument to be incredibly weak when it comes to the subject. I doubt we could discuss it here, but maybe I will shoot you a PM. He oversimplifies a complex issue. It's a lot like saying that every single person that consumes alcohol is the same. Just isn't true.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Eldwynn

[Wiki Wonka]

2. Easy access to clearly presented, in-context information that is damaging to the Church.

My experience has been that placing information "in-context" has been a huge benefit rather than a detriment. One only has to read some of the Tanner's ellipsis-laden quotations from 19th-Century general authorities to see that. The original sources were not easily accessible then, but they are now because of the internet. The removal of quotes from context by critics has been much easier to deal with now that we can link to the actual sources.

WW

[Damien the Leper]

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-

This reminds me of when Albert Einstein stated: "It has become appallingly clear that our technology has surpassed our humanity." I certainly hope not. For without our humanity there would he no love, compassion, charity, grace or mercy.

[Avatar4321]

Good. If it werent for the internet, I wouldnt have my testimony. Granted, I may have found it in other ways as well. But the internet has brought me closer to Christ. It's brought me my wife and now my soon to be born daughter.

I dont think the Lord would have inspired the creation of the internet if it wasnt for the Good of His work.

[Avatar4321]

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.

I agree. The Critics on the internet convinced me there had to be something to the Church. I mean if they were telling the truth, why did so many of them have to make things up? Distort things? Why did they have to blatantly misrepresent things? Why do you need to be sensational? Why not just speak the truth? The efforts they went to avoiding the truth made me investigate the Church more. Especially when the Church members were always encouraging me not to take their word for it, but to ask God.

I think pornography is a great threat. We need to forsake it as a people.

[Hamba Tuhan]

My experience has been that placing information "in-context" has been a huge benefit rather than a detriment.

As a recently minted doctor of history (my PhD thesis was unanimously passed exactly one week ago!), that's precisely what I thought.

[LeSellers]

As a recently minted doctor of history (my PhD thesis was unanimously passed exactly one week ago!),

Congrats!

All the best,

Lehi

[Jaybear]

My experience has been that placing information "in-context" has been a huge benefit rather than a detriment. One only has to read some of the Tanner's ellipsis-laden quotations from 19th-Century general authorities to see that. The original sources were not easily accessible then, but they are now because of the internet. The removal of quotes from context by critics has been much easier to deal with now that we can link to the actual sources.

My impression is that this "out of context" charge is grossly overstated.

Here is an example of out of context:

Obama: "John McCain says, and I quote "If we keep talking about the economy we are going to lose.'"

Romney: Obama "If we keep talking about the economy, we are going to lose."

Do you have an example of the Tanners providing a quote out of context as egregiously and dishonestly as Mitt Romney?

[thesometimesaint]

Yes. But that is besides the point. Either one or both in any discussion can be dishonest and to varying degrees.

[ChristKnight]

I personally think that the Internet is great for the Church, if one can sift through all the garbage, which sometimes may seem more prominent. The work of LDS apologists and scholars has been great for me as a convert, and actually helped me decide to join the Church of Jesus Christ. FARMS/MI and FAIR are great resources (among many others).

[Jaybear]

Yes. But that is besides the point. Either one or both in any discussion can be dishonest and to varying degrees.

Its not polite to accuse someone of being dishonest. If you can't back up your charge with clear cogent proof, you shouldn't make the charge.