Well, yes, but I’ve pretty much broken them all. You shouldn’t cuss or call people names or lose your temper. You should criticize the church carefully and discreetly, not to step on other deeper believers’ feelings.

On the other hand, you can be more yourself than you might be in church.

I think you should respond to people who address you. It’s only comment courtesy.

What horrible wordplay?

Bloggers should be careful not to insinuate that their opinions, however researched, constitute official LDS doctrine.

It seems to me that the only imperative should be to seek the truth. That is the imperative that guided Joseph Smith. I suppose that this entails a whole host of other duties such as being nice, as BRoz says, being sincere, understanding that one is more than likely wrong about various assertions, etc. I suppose the entire point of any discussion about the church, and all that that consists of, should be to lead people towards living a more moral life, whatever that ends up meaning in the end.

I am wondering if consistent or even occasional use of harsh profanity is the #1 no-no in the LDS blogging community. I don’t know if it’s the main thing or not, and it’s not that profanity has never entered LDS threads - but I think it is one of the main things that differentiates LDS bloggers from many other bloggers.

We get into heated arguments from time to time, to a degree that people even hold grudges to some extent. But it seems to be largely understood that consistent or even occasional use of harsh profanity is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

So if there are definitive self-imposed LDS blogging standards proven over time in the ‘Nacle, I would say that is one of them.

Clark, Seth said thread necromancy is impolite on NON-lds blogs. LDS blogs seem to be friendly toward the opening of old posts, which makes them different.

Apart from the occasional DKL-Kurt showdown, I am impressed that all of the conversation on Mormon blogs stays as friendly as it does. That’s an important Do in my mind (by this shalmeno, and all that).

Clark and Seth … while threadjacking or ‘thread necromancy’ are real blogger concerns, I’m not sure if being for or against them has anything specific to do with LDS principles or LDS blogging. Maybe I’m wrong though.

I’m wondering specifically about LDS standards or principles that have existed for a long time and how, if at all, they translate into LDS blogging standards.

Wayne wrote “the only imperative should be to seek the truth.” Is that an LDS standard? It sounds like a good thing. But has that value translated into an LDS blogging standard? Maybe. Bloggers sure got upset when they found out BOH fooled everybody.

We could explore it a little bit farther. There are different kinds of truth. Maybe to the Feminist Mormon Housewives blog, “the truth” is discussion about poop in a diaper or public discussion of personal sexual development.

T&S has the words “truth will prevail” under their title. Maybe it means more to them than just a nice-sounding motto. I’m fairly sure they want to write about truth, whether they have formally discussed it or not.

That’s just one principle or idea that LDS people might say matters to them. There are a lot of others.

I’m kind of hoping we can come up with a list of LDS blogging standards, not a list of shoulds we think about when the topic specifically comes up — but rather from what we have observed so far - what seems to actually matter to LDS bloggers when they are just being themselves and not thinking too hard about it.

As a newcomer to the “bloggernacle” I’ve been particularly interested in the expectations surrounding the comments section. I don’t refer to the ubiquitous “comments guidelines” but rather the unspoken social contract. What is more appropriate: affirmation or competing ideas? I imagine that this varies from site to site (and the comment presentation certainly counts), but I think that if you approached it as a sociologist you’d conclude based on the sheer volume of posts that the section existed for backslapping and socializing.

Wayne, I’ve been thinking about what seeking truth might mean to various bloggers. I think that bloggers have different priorities and interests and the truths they choose to discuss are very related to those priorities. Some LDS bloggers want “to let it all hang out” and talk about personal things. That’s one kind of truth. Some LDS bloggers have strong political opinions or causes and they blog about that. That’s another kind of truth. Some LDS bloggers want to be scholarly and approach truth from that perspective.

However, I think there are specific foundational church-related truths that the majority (notice I didn’t say all) of LDS bloggers accept more or less. I remember a few years ago when a particular blogger (from another church) visiting Times and Seasons wanted to prove the Book of Mormon is fale. If I recall correctly, he was firmly informed by the permabloggers there that this was something more or less settled in our minds and that if he wanted to debate that topic, he should find another forum to do that.

I’m thinking that may be one of the LDS blogging standards I’m trying to identify. That is, for the most part, we as LDS people have accepted certain things to be true (Joseph Smith is a Prophet, the priesthood is restored, the Book of Mormon is scripture, etc.) and as a community we aren’t extremely interested in entertaining or debating the idea that these things are not true.

I think there’s a natural tendency among Mormon blogs (and the blogosphere in general) toward marginal topics, i.e. topics that are new or exciting or controversial. This means new readers don’t get any context or background, which could deprive them of some of the core beliefs we all share and take for granted. I’d like to see every Mormon blog and blog post contain a small link entitled “get more info” or “about this religion”. It could direct the reader to a page by the author that explains his or her beliefs and gives links to other good resources about the Church. Seth Godin has talked about this (a phenomenon unique to blogs) and even suggested that sites uses cookies to distinguish between new readers and returning readers. New readers could receive a message that says “in case you don’t know anything about the Mormon church, here is some basic info that will set the stage….”

I wasn’t offended, I was teasing you. This is a time when it would be good to be face to face.

For the record, I’m rarely offended.

I don’t know danithew, I rather like profanity. And I think that threadjacks aren’t a bad thing. They reflect the real-world, chaotic nature of normal discussion, in which the discussion takes on a life of its own. I also think that the tradeoff between truth and fun is not always worth it — it depends on the circumstances.

Perhaps something else should be mentioned, in relation to LDS blogging. I’ve certainly gotten a sense that a hefty number of LDS bloggers have become disenchanted with the bloggernacle and more or less restrict their blogging interactions accordingly. They may continue to visit and comment on blogs they like, but avoid the others. Some real animosity has arisen between different bloggers, for a variety of reasons.

One has to wonder then if there is a belief in the possibility of an online Zion community or if that is too absurd to even talk about.

For better or worse (perhaps worse) blogging is by nature about self-promotion and personal interests. We have all seen that it can be extremely competitive and that it can be extremely cliquish.

I like to think that blogging can serve a positive purpose and I think there are positive examples of LDS blogs out there. But perhaps the very nature of blogging militates against the existence of an LDS blogging community that actually blogs in accordance with the highest LDS ideals.

Looks like a fairly good list DKL, though I think “use of profanity sparingly, for effect or humor” still is not really an LDS standard. It also depends on what profanity we’re talking about. I almost never see the heavy stuff in the ‘Nacle. Maybe I’m not paying enough attention?

Just for the heck of it, I wonder who could link us to actual uses of profanity in the ‘Nacle. Are there a lot of them? Too many? Or are they scarce and hard to remember? I can think of one specific instance where I personally expresed concern about the f-word being used on a blog, and I got rammed for it. But it wasn’t one of the mainstream LDS blogs.

danithew, look at comment # 128 in BCC’s exasperation with the media thread.

Kaimi’s usage there is for effect, basically. He’s not calling any commenter a name or using profanity to insult them. That’s what I intend when I refer to the use of profanity.

When I was a kid, I remember our Bishop used the word “damn” over the pulpit. Apparently, 15-17 year old boys were congregating in the foyers during sacrament meetings, leaving their families in the middle of the meeting to socialize. After addressing this politely a few times, one Sunday, he finally said something to the effect of, “Keep your damned children with your families during the entire meeting whenever possible.” I was somewhere around the age of 9. I remember it vividly, and it solved the problem.

DKL, I know what you mean by using profanity for effect. I had a rather rocky but serious relationship with a girl once and my branch president was talking to me about it. At some point in the conversation, he said “stop having those b.s. conversations” … except he didn’t use the acronym.

I laughed, it got my attention and the point was made.

I know profanity can be used purposefully and in those instances it has the most effect if the speaker is someone from whom profanity is not expected. Also, as soon as I read that comment I knew why Kaimi used it. Men who beat their wives are in fact what he called them.

No doubt I’ve belabored the point by now.

What about sarcasm? I like sarcasm but bloggers tend not to appreciate it.

although, if you’re going to dish it out, you better be able to take it.

[...] A few weeks ago I left the following comment on MormonMentality.org in response to a post about the “do’s and don’ts of LDS blogging”: I think there’s a natural tendency among Mormon blogs (and the blogosphere in general) toward marginal topics, i.e. topics that are new or exciting or controversial. This means new readers don’t get any context or background, which could deprive them of some of the core beliefs we all share and take for granted. I’d like to see every Mormon blog and blog post contain a small link entitled “get more info” or “about this religion”. It could direct the reader to a page by the author that explains his or her beliefs and gives links to other good resources about the Church. Seth Godin has talked about this (a phenomenon unique to blogs) and even suggested that sites uses cookies to distinguish between new readers and returning readers. New readers could receive a message that says “in case you don’t know anything about the Mormon church, here is some basic info that will set the stage….” (Comment #19) [...]

Hello, very nice site, keep up good job!
Admin good, very good.