Deseret News | LDS Church starts blogging

Reader comments
LDS Church starts blogging

John Charity Spring | 2:05 p.m. Aug. 19, 2009

While I have nothing but respect for the LDS Church, this blogging idea is a mistake. More often than not, bloggs are used to promote immorality and substance abuse. The LDS Church cannot join a group that engages in this kind of activity without damaging its reputation.

RE: John Charity Spring | 2:36 p.m. Aug. 19, 2009

Have you ever used the internet? On what basis do you make the claim that blogs are more often than not used for drugs and immorality. That is a ridiculous and completely misinformed claim. I think most blogs are probably used by families, corporations, and community organizations. The church supports families and is a community organization that is run as a corporation. That is like saying don't learn to play a musical instrument because they are used to convey immoral messages more often than not. Don't broadcast on TV because most shows contain cursing and questionable material...Please join us in the current millennium.

RE: John Charity Spring, PS | 2:38 p.m. Aug. 19, 2009

Do you even know what a blog is? Please post your definition here.

Comments continue below

Marsha Ward | 2:40 p.m. Aug. 19, 2009

Interesting, John. Of the millions of blogs out there (including several of my own), you've read them all? I applaud the LDS Church for adding a strong voice to the many who are blogging truth and light, and arts and crafts and writing and how-to-be-a good-parent and preparedness and Christian living and on and on. Just don't read the bad blogs (I haven't come across one yet).

Doug | 2:40 p.m. Aug. 19, 2009

I couldn't disagree more. A blog is what you make it. I think a healthy blog is a great idea. Maybe it will set a new trend.

wrong again jcspring | 2:46 p.m. Aug. 19, 2009

Offering something positive and refreshing is the perfect way to improve any blogging atmosphere.
Why must you always be so critical of the LDS church?

Confused | 2:48 p.m. Aug. 19, 2009

I don't know what sort of blogs you've been following, but blogs that encourage immorality and substance abuse are not normal.

Perhaps you should spend less time looking for that sort of thing and you'll end up finding it less?

Most of the blogs I've seen have been news commentaries, social commentaries, or personal diaries.

Blog blog blog | 3:02 p.m. Aug. 19, 2009

Oh, this is going to be fun.

Find what you're looking for | 3:08 p.m. Aug. 19, 2009

With the internet, you find what you're looking for. For me, the internet is a fantastic resource, but an occasional waste of time. I wonder who's fault that is?

Deseret Dawg | 5:22 p.m. Aug. 19, 2009

John Charity - You are confusing social networks with blogs. While MySpace is a toxic cyber-landfill for predators and losers, blogs are not necessarily so.

Too bad this new LDS Church blog won't permit comments, but I can understand why they won't. I'll still look forward to reading it.

The Deuce | 11:36 p.m. Aug. 19, 2009

If the blog does not provide factual comments and information from Church sources, it becomes a site for mis-information and confusion. Why would the LDS Church qualify their statement by saying that the blog does not contain church policy when it comes from the Public Affairs group of the LDS Church?

Marc | 6:44 a.m. Aug. 20, 2009

Great to see the Church using more technology.

Now, if we can only get the powers at be to spend some time on the STAKE WEBSITE and give us some attention to making it more of what WE need instead of what they THINK we need...

John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt | 9:14 a.m. Aug. 20, 2009

I hope they use phrases like "Heck" and "Oh my Gosh!"

Lame Ideas | 9:39 a.m. Aug. 20, 2009

Who is behind the church marketing ideas? First twitter and now a blog, hummmm does it seem as if the church is trying to be cool!? I guess in a cyber world exists a cyber church right? This is all to silly for me. Whats next a mormon reality show, pulheeez!

@jcs | 9:47 a.m. Aug. 20, 2009

No, no, no. Everyone knows that all blogs are about technology and/or liberal politics. That has to be true, because mine is!

Doesn't a 'Blog'......? | 9:47 a.m. Aug. 20, 2009

Doesn't a blog infer allowing open comments to be made? I saw nothing which suggests anyone can comment on anything on this supposed 'blog'.

@Mar | 9:49 a.m. Aug. 20, 2009

Too true... In case anyone from LUWS is reading this -- start with a feature comparison of the stake calendar function vs. Google calendar. The ONLY feature the stake calendar has that Google doesn't do better is official approval from Salt Lake for use by Church units.

@Mar & @Mar 9:49 | 10:52 a.m. Aug. 20, 2009

I don't know where the first post went BUT I agree 100% that the Church should consider it a priority to improve the local unit website program before it expands off into other areas.

They have great potiential for helping Wards communicate and inspire, but they lack some refinements which will make them more useable and easier to administer.

The calendar comment is a great example, repeating events on my Calendar Creator software are "easy" while those on LUWS are difficult at best, especially where there are to be exceptions to a repeating event (i.e. Sunday Meetings & General Conference)

Back to Blogs - the Church blog looks like it is aimed at external communication, while LUWS are intended as internal (private) websites which require a user name and password to use them. None-the-less, the same programming staff is involved and my priorities would lean towards getting the LUWS up to speed before branching out to new things like blogs.

Just my opinion and I am not a GA, who I am sure were involved it setting the priorities.

Anonymous | 11:14 a.m. Aug. 20, 2009

It's a good start for sure, but to me the very best blogs allow comments. I understand why they would be reticent to allow them, but I think that will make it more of a press release vehicle rather than an interactive blog.

Jim in Texas | 11:26 a.m. Aug. 20, 2009

I think the Church will find the "blog" a good means of communication for the purpose it will be used.

Does anyone recall that stated purpose the Church gave for using the "blog"?

It is to be used to "add context" to stories posted to the internet about the Church.

In other words, to correct the many negitivly biased rumors and stories on the internet about the Church.

How can anyone object to that?

A LDS Member for over 50 years | 12:07 p.m. Aug. 20, 2009

This is nothing new, that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has now entered the realm of blogging, in this so called "couch potato" www technology world, there were a lot of LDS related chat rooms where one could even use a web cam, and voice also, as another form to communicate. However, in the old school, that I was raised in, to communicate was to use your real voice face to face, or on a "land-line" telephone, or in person. That's the true way to really communicate. Now this opens up another can of worms, with non member negitivly biased rumors and lies and bad stories on the internet about the Church and the people in it as well. No one can really know, or see, who and what the other person is saying or doing. These Church blog's looks like it is aimed at external communication only, and if Jesus Christ in HIS CHURCH, as another form of communication, "so be it". But I really don't believe Jesus Christ wanted to communicate this way. That's my view. I don't have to agree with whoever thunk it up either.

Anonymous | 12:08 p.m. Aug. 20, 2009

As long as they don't link to desnews stories that link to mormontimes that link to another original source, we'll be good...

RE: John Charity | 12:22 p.m. Aug. 20, 2009

You're obviously just joking around.

Re: John Charity Spring | 2:05 p | 12:26 p.m. Aug. 20, 2009

I FULLY AGREE. Just whose CHURCH is it anyway?. Not the one that wants to "play geek and start a blog". That's for sure.

1. Christ organized the Church (Ephesians 4:11-15)

2. The true church must bear the name of Jesus Christ
(Ephesians 5:23)

3. The true church must have a foundation of
Apostles and Prophets (Ephesians 2:19-20)

4. The true church must have the same organization as Christ's Church (Ephesians 4:11-15)

5. The true church must claim divine authority (Hebrews 4:4-10)

6. The true church must have no paid ministry
(Acts 20:33-34; John 10 11-13)

7. The true church must baptize by immersion (Mathew 3:13-16)

8. The true church must bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands
(Acts 8:14-17)

Ted Stevens | 12:34 p.m. Aug. 20, 2009

the internets are a series of tubes.

Anonymous | 1:00 p.m. Aug. 20, 2009

Did Jesus Christ give his ok on this blog web site?. I don't think so. Perhaps we should then question The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Could this be the consequences of following a prophet's erroneous opinion again blogs, anyone can be apologetic after the fact, if what they did turned out to be a nightmare. We are always told that the prophet is never wrong, we are to NEVER question what the prophet says or does either. If you do then you stand to be excommunicated. However, this is a bit to much. We should speak up. It's Christ's Church. He run's it HIS way.

Kyle from AZ | 1:07 p.m. Aug. 20, 2009

Wa wa wa...the eternal whinning of Mormons and non-mormons never ends.

Anonymous | 1:18 p.m. Aug. 20, 2009

to Kyle from AZ:

So, as a Whiner yourself, which group do you fall into?

Mormon or Non-Mormon?

timbo | 1:47 p.m. Aug. 20, 2009

I can't believe there are this many people who really even care if the church uses a blog or not. I'm even more frustrated that I read some of these comments. If the church thinks that sharing the gospel through the internet is an effective way of doing so, let them do it. Good night, you people act like they just changed the ten commandments to include, "Thou shalt not eat."

Confused | 2:06 p.m. Aug. 20, 2009

I really don't get how the president of the church is now erroneous because the church would like to use the internet to spread the gospel. Frankly in my opinion it's a great idea - using new media to reach people. I hope they have an RSS feed so I can get updated information about the church--if only I could get an RSS feed of elders quorum lessons. :-)

Crawfish | 3:37 p.m. Aug. 20, 2009

So, it will be used to "clarify", but whatever's said there won't be "official". Geez...if there was ever a case of plausible deniability, it's within the church. I guess, considering their history of flip-flopping, they've got to be careful on who they give the final word to...

Sith | 4:28 p.m. Aug. 20, 2009

John Charity Spring | 2:05 p.m. Aug. 19, 2009
"While I have nothing but respect for the LDS Church, this blogging idea is a mistake. More often than not, bloggs are used to promote immorality and substance abuse. The LDS Church cannot join a group that engages in this kind of activity without damaging its reputation."

Of course the Internet is not a perfect place to be, but what a great idea to promote the LDS Church to the world. The world is always questioning the LDS Church as it does, other Churches about beliefs, and doctrines and therefore, this idea is a wonderful one. Way to go LDS Church.

Non-moderated comments are bad | 4:50 p.m. Aug. 20, 2009

Deseret Dawg,

"Too bad this new LDS Church blog won't permit comments, but I can understand why they won't. I'll still look forward to reading it."

They do permit comments but they require that they be sent by email so that the identity of the person can be verified in case there is a lawsuit against the Church for slander, libel, defamation or many other problems which can arise as a result of blogs and forums allowing non-moderated comments.

There are really two choices the Church can make to avoid lawsuits from responses posted by a third-party. The first is to not allow any posts and the second is to moderate all posts. If they choose to moderate a post but don't verify the identity of the poster they can still be held legally accountable but if they collect information that can allow the courts to identify the offending party then they can't be held accountable as an online publisher.

I never approve comments to blogs I own without checking out the IP of the user to ensure that it's a personal/business IP and not a public computer.

Comments are bad | 4:59 p.m. Aug. 20, 2009

Re: Doesn't a 'Blog'......?

"Doesn't a blog infer allowing open comments to be made? I saw nothing which suggests anyone can comment on anything on this supposed 'blog'."

You don't understand what a blog is. It's short for web log or an online diary, journal and is different from forums such as this one. A person or entity who blogs is simply posting articles for people to read and while some of them allow responses and comments. Many do not. When I blog about computers, games and other things I don't allow any comments because I'm inclined to moderate all comments because of there are business posts that I get every couple of hours that say the same thing and which spam my email.

On my more popular blogs I routinely have to ban IP addresses from commenting because they are literally spamming the same message on every blog I write such as "How I Lost 30 Pounds in 30 Days Without Diet."

The Church simply doesn't have the time to weed through millions of comments like these and I get hundreds daily on even small blogs.

Don't be stupid | 5:08 p.m. Aug. 20, 2009

Re: Crawfish

"So, it will be used to "clarify", but whatever's said there won't be "official". Geez...if there was ever a case of plausible deniability, it's within the church. I guess, considering their history of flip-flopping, they've got to be careful on who they give the final word to..."

Every business does the same sort of thing because they aren't able to monitor every "blog" written by their employees. The blogs of their employees aren't reflective of company policy and don't necessarily represent official company policy.

Thomas S. Monson isn't going to sit in front of his computer all day every day to ensure that LDS Church employees aren't going off the handle and saying something stupid, offensive, false or against Church policy or doctrine.

Why should the LDS Church be any different. Someone who makes $10-20 an hour doesn't get to have a final word on Church policy or doctrine.

This isn't plausible deniability. It's common sense. It's common sense that low-level employees don't speak for a company, organization or Church.

Seek professional help | 5:15 p.m. Aug. 20, 2009

Anonymous,

"Did Jesus Christ give his ok on this blog web site? I don't think so."

What exactly makes you believe that Jesus Christ wouldn't approve of the use of blogs but would approve of websites; television, radio and print ads; or for that matter going door to door.

"Perhaps we should then question The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Could this be the consequences of following a prophet's erroneous opinion again blogs, anyone can be apologetic after the fact, if what they did turned out to be a nightmare."

Blogging is completely within reason and there is no legitimate reason to believe that Christ wouldn't be blogging himself if he was alive.

"However, this is a bit to much. We should speak up. It's Christ's Church. He run's it HIS way."

Which in your sick and deluded mind is your way. You truly believe that you speak for Christ and that you are never wrong.

Did Christ approve of your post here? The absurdity of your comment is seen when it really comes down to Christ approving of everything you agree with but not anything you disagree with.

Crawfish | 5:24 p.m. Aug. 20, 2009

@ Don't Be Stupid...
I guess the question becomes...why does the truth need so much defending in word, print, and now blogosphere? Why isn't the "truth" just a tad more self-evident?

Legal liability is a major issue | 5:27 p.m. Aug. 20, 2009

Re: Anonymous

"It's a good start for sure, but to me the very best blogs allow comments. I understand why they would be reticent to allow them, but I think that will make it more of a press release vehicle rather than an interactive blog."

Blogs are by definition not interactive and the larger the company, organization or Church that blogs the less likely they are to allow comments simply because they wouldn't have the time to go through the millions of comments.

Even if 10% of the members of the LDS Church were to comment on the blog it would equal approximately 1.2 million people choosing to comment in any given year but then you have to take into account the millions of others who may choose to comment and then you can begin to see why these organizations don't allow the general public to comment.

I didn't see the blog actually claiming to be interactive and most blogs aren't.

The email requirement allows them to take full legal responsibility for everything that is posted without the additional liability that comes from editing or moderating comments.

It's coming | 5:39 p.m. Aug. 20, 2009

TO: @Mar

"Too true... In case anyone from LUWS is reading this -- start with a feature comparison of the stake calendar function vs. Google calendar. The ONLY feature the stake calendar has that Google doesn't do better is official approval from Salt Lake for use by Church units."

Don't concern yourself about it. The LUWS are in the process of being scraped and replaced with something better. The problem is that they have to work on the secure portion of it before they can release it. The new LDS Accounts are only the beginning.

The new website will likely include such things as a Profile; Home Teaching/Visiting Teaching; Favorites; Ward Calendar, Directory, and Leadership; Tithing and Donations; Membership Map; Messaging System; Calling specific information; and the ability to bookmark, tag, and create notes for the scriptures and General Conference talks among many other things; and the ability to read your patriarchal blessing online without having to worry about the security of your private information.

My advice to you is to slow down, settle down and realize that the Church does not rush into things.

Sister Smith | 4:21 a.m. Aug. 21, 2009

Yes, I must agree with the first comment from John Charity Spring. Most blogs are used to promote immorality and substance abuse, and that is the last thing the church needs right now. Instead of wasting, and frittering away precious time, we should all be anxiously engaged in good. Rather than spending so much time on the Internet, wouldn`t a better use of our resources (time) be spent reading and pondering the scriptures?
The Brethren have often counseled us against misuse of the Internet.

Anonymous | 12:47 p.m. Sept. 13, 2009

Billy Grahams "angels" is inspired,the monson name is mentioned in a little story in the back,a coincidence?

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.