Throughout my case study I have looked at the Mormon messages videos:
The first week centered around the video, "Choose This Day" I classified this video as light in doctrine.

The second week I looked at a video of Elder Holland's testimony of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. I classified this video as heavier in doctrine.

This past week I looked at the video "Lessons I learned as a Boy" by the late prophet Gordon B. Hinkley. I classified this video as light in doctrine, but heavy in authority.

My observations show that there is generally very little response to strong anti comments from non-member, but when there is a response it is never vengeful.

The responses were usually just answers to the questions asked and though they defended the faith they members did not engage in arguments. 

In the last video I was surprised to read responses to this negative statement about the church. Could it be because these were the words of a (somewhat) recently deceased prophet that people became more defensive? If that is the case, I would have expected to find more defensive responses closer to Hinkley's passing, but I did not see that.

In the October 2013 Ensign (Church Magazine) there is an article  by Elder Quentin L. Cook of the Quorum of the Tweleve-Apostles that has to do with Internet usage. He advises members to not act out of charachter and to not hide their identity online using "black painted faces". He points out that those who dragged Joseph Smith into the night to tar and feather him had black-painted faces, and  those who killed the Prophet in Carthage also painted their faces to hide their identity.

"One of your greatest protections against making bad choices is not to put on any mask of anonymity. If you ever find yourself wanting to do so, please know it is a serious sign of danger and one of the adversary’s tools to get you to do something you should not do.

It is common today to hide one’s identity when writing hateful, vitriolic, bigoted communications anonymously online. Some refer to it as flaming.

The Apostle Paul wrote:

“Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.

“Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God” (1 Corinthians 15:33–34).

It is clear that evil communications are not just a matter of bad manners. If practiced by Latter-day Saints, they can adversely affect those who do not have knowledge of God or a testimony of the Savior.

Any use of the Internet to bully, destroy a reputation, or place a person in a bad light is reprehensible. What we are seeing in society is that when people wear the mask of anonymity, they are more likely to engage in this kind of conduct, which is so destructive of civil discourse. It also violates the basic principles the Savior taught."

The council to "try to show kindness in all that you do, be gentle and loving in deed and in thought"and to avoid contention is not new. The reference to persecution and the Martyrdom of Joseph Smith is also not new. 

It is easy to say that members react how they do because they are specifically counciled to react in a certain way and because of teachings about the spirit (that it is through the spirit that people know the truth, and that the spirit fleas from contention) but there is another aspect to it that I hadn't considered before. That is the role of persecution.

In my last post I mentioned that there were more comments about those who persecute than comments persecuting. 

We Thank Thee, O God, for a Propeht.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naqX9iYE0V0
This week I looked at the Mormon Messages video, “Lessons I Learned as a Boy” which was taken from a talk given by the late president Gordon B. Hinkley in the April 1993 General Conference. The message is not particularly heavy in doctrine like Elder Holland’s testimony of the Book of Mormon was, but it is a message coming from a former prophet which adds an element of Authority that wasn’t present in “Choose This Day” (though Henry B. Eyring has a lot of Authority as well)

The first non-member comment I saw was this one:

 

It is pretty recent and very harsh. Judging from my past observations I didn't expect it to get any response, but it did. 

 

This response seemed particularly out of place because it invites a sort of back and forth argument and there is no invitation for the original poster to find more information but there is a bit of humor in that it is an exact reciprocation.

I was surprised that there was even one response to smedlyb's comment, but there were actually 3. The fact that there are three responses to smedlyb's comment and that it has only been 3 weeks since smedlyb posted it seems very out of the ordinary. Smedlyb accuses the church of being false but the phrase "false religion" implies more than just not believing that the church is true but it is a phrase often interchanged with the word "cult".

This example is more in line with what I saw in the other two videos and what I would generally expect. This comment is not hostile and asks a question, based on my studies in the previous weeks this kind of comment should get the most responses, and it does.  

All responses to this comment explain to some extent, the doctrine of "The Plan of Salvation" also known as "God's Plan of Happiness". 

Before our souls came to Earth we all lived with our heavenly parents. Just by coming to Earth we showed a great amount of faith, we knew life on Earth was going to be hard and 1/3 of the spirits would not come. We entered mortality to learn and progress, prepare to return to live with Heavenly Father, and most importantly to have Joy. "Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy." (2 Nephi 2:25) After death souls go to the "Postmortal Spirit World" which consists of spirit paradise and spirit prison. Many souls will accept the gospel in the spirit world. After Christ's second coming, there will be a resurrection and the souls be reunited with the body and stand before the judgement of God and inherit one of three kingdoms or be cast into outer darkness. (Outer Darkness is reserved for the sons of perdition or 1/3 who never came to Earth, and not something any of you should worry about!)

So that is how I explain the Plan of Salavation, but how and to what extent do the respondents use it to answer TheScriptureMan's question?

 

Drtruth8, 1974spr, and Joshua Jorgensen explain important parts of the Plan of Salvation. 1974spr stresses that the Gospel will be made avaliable to all in this world and in the next. He goes even further and explains the necessity of Temple ordinances for the dead. 

Drtruth8 explains that it is at the second coming rather than at death that souls inherit their kingdoms of glory and emphasizes happiness. He also ends by inviting the person to pray in order to find answers. 

Joshua Jorgensen focuses on the Postmortal Spirit World pointing out that everybody will have an oppertunity to hear the Gospel and to learn from Christ himself.

These three responses contain a lot of doctrine, and when put together give a pretty complete picture of the Plan of Salvation. Some responses were less doctrinal though:

Ronnie Kelly's response doesn't really explain the Plan of Salvation and is much more alligned with a Protestant understanding of the final Judgement. In fact, had he not used such Mormon language like, "Testify to the truthfulness of all things" and "endure to the end" I would assume he was Protestant. "Good people who love the Lord" really constrains what it means to be "Good" and in a way denies that there are good people who do not love the Lord. Does Christ love only they that love him? Surely not, for he said, "For if yee loue them which loue you, what reward haue yee? Doe not euen the Publicanes the same?" (Matthew 5:46) 

The difference in responses is a good example of people having the same doctrine yet a different understanding of that doctrine. 

The third comment I examined for this week was by MultiFagman. It got 228 likes and a lot of interesting responses.

 

There was one reaction from another non-member, but this is difficult to analyze because I'm not really sure how to take it. 

The LDS responses to this comment, as I had expected, were very positive. I was a little surprised that nobody encouraged MultiFagman to learn more, read the Book of Mormon, or visit mormon.org.

 I found the response by Jaeden Carpenter especially interesting. It thanks MultiFagman for not putting negative comments on the video. There were other comments by LDS (not in reaction to MultiFagman) that mention how people could be so hateful, and several people referenced the amount of dislikes the video got. However, I really did not see that many negative comments. I saw more comments about how many negative comments there were than actual negative comments. Maybe they were deleted but as far as I know likes and dislikes are permanent and the video got 4,654 likes and only 187 dislikes. That along with something Elder Hales said during the Saturday morning session of General Conference last weekend and really doing this whole study in general has made me begin to look at persecution and it's role in the church differently. I'd like to go deeper into that later on.

Comparing and rethinking

By looking at the comments and responses to comments on the Mormon Messages videos, “Choose this Day” and “A Testimony of the Book of Mormon” I was struck by the diversity of the comments left by non-members and the uniformity of the LDS responses to those comments.

I think we gain valuable insight when we look at the anti-Mormon comments that did not get any response. In fact, I in some ways what isn’t said is more telling than what is said. Take the comments of “truthdottcom” from “Choose This Day” as an example.

This shows two very different responses from non-members. Castheman1050 is a non-member but appreciates the message and draws a lot of similarities between Catholicism and Mormonism. Out of all the comments from non-members this kind is the most common and gains the most “likes”. For the video “Choose This Day” The two top comments are from non-members one from a Buddhist that got 115 likes and Castheman1050’s comment with 74 likes. Most people are kind, loving, and open albeit sometimes heavily misinformed. Even though the focuses of my study are the non-members who are more critical, it’s important to not forget the goodness.

Through Truthdottcom’s  reaction to Castheman1050’s comment we see two contrasting ends of the spectrum. Truthdottcom brings up the issues quite frequently brought forth in Anti-Mormon literature and evangelical campaigns against the LDS (and apparently Islam and Jehovah’s Witness as well) He received one response, but it is difficult to judge whether the responder was LDS or not and received 0 likes. As I pointed out last week the juvenile or outright vicious comments don’t get much of a response, especially those who don’t ask a question.

A major finding of my case study has been: if you want an answer, then ask a question. It seems really simple but it is something I had overlooked before. I attributed the lack of response to the aggressiveness of the comment and did not even realise that those comments that were very vicious or juvenile usually had no question attached. Even the questions that had elements of criticism or accusation tied into them received answers. The doctrine is not secret, and members are very willing teach others about it.

Questions are important because they give members an opportunity to share the gospel. What is at the centre of every LDS response to non-member comments has been focused on proselytizing and directing people to the Book of Mormon.

I had concluded last week that the comments from the Book of Mormon video did not show a better understanding of the Church and I stand by that but if we look at it from a different angel, from an angle of who is more open to learning more about the Church instead of  who already knows more about the church it is different. Going back to the example of truthdottcom v. Castheman1050 neither show a willingness to learn more. By assuming that Catholicism and Mormonism are basically the same Castheman1050 shows just as much willingness to learn more about the Gospel as truthdottcom. Though some were a rudely framed, the questions from the video of Holland’s testimony of the Book of Mormon opened the door to let members teach.

There has been a huge push for missionary work in the church. This time last year at General Conference President Monson announced a lowering of missionary age. Males would be eligible at 18 (down from 19) and females at 19 (down from 21). This summer it was announced that Missionaries would be able to use Social Media on their missions and members are also encouraged to be more outgoing in sharing the gospel online.

My case study has evolved a bit from when I started and I’ve been looking more at the responses of members to non-member comments in general and not just those that seem anti. How do members share their faith and encourage others in the gospel through YouTube.

I will continue my research next week by looking at a Mormon Messages video from the Prophet. This time,  instead of looking at a video that delves deeper into doctrine and it's effect on the openness of non-members, I will instead focus on the impact of a video that pulls from higher authority. 

a little deeper

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkKblIMfmjI

This week I will be looking at another Mormon Messages video on youtube and the responses it garners. The Mormon Messages video I will be focusing on is called, “A Testimony of the Book of Mormon”. This video is made up of pieces of the testimony of Elder Jeffery R. Holland (of the quorum of the twelve) which he bore at the October 2009 General conference in a talk called, “Saftey for the Soul”. It is more doctrinal than the video I used last week (which many people, religious or not could agree on) this one, however, is very specific to the restoration.

My main question for this week was whether or not the type of comments left by non-members be different now that some heavier doctrine is introduced. Would the non-members that were drawn to a more serious video already have a better understanding of the doctrine and principles of the church and would the responses to the questions of non-members go into deeper doctrine?

There were the standard jabs:

1. Mormons are not Christian

2. Taking out the second "m" in Mormon and Mormonism.

These, as is the norm, did not get any real response or attention. The LDS believe that truth comes from God and you can know of the truth through personal revelation given by the Holy Spirit, but contention is of the devil (3 Nephi 11:29) and the spirit cannot dwell in an unholy temple therefore debating is useless as the person could never come to the truth and dragging yourself into that debate could harm you. 

The reactions that got the most response were:

He DID show it to 11 people whose witnesses can be found in the very front of the Book of Mormon, it's true that some later fell away, yet all maintained that they had truely seen the gold plates. go to mormon.org to request a free copy. --The overwhelming majority of responses went along those lines there were a few, however, which deviated from the script. 

yupyup22100 responded that you must walk by faith and did not mention the eyewitnesses at all.

TheCompassion101 says that God told Joseph not to show the plates to people because of their sacred nature. 

 This also gets a lot of attention and the responses are also very uniform. Nobody asked about his "don't use the humble approach" thing and I have no idea what he means by that. People pointed out that we do use the Bible quite often but that the Book of Mormon is newer, it is something unique we have to offer, because it is newer and was only translated once to English it did not loose as much as the Bible has.

The responses to this were split yet united. Some said that through faith we can gain a knowledge of all things and truth that comes from God is stronger evidence than history and science. The other half argue that there actually is a lot of history and science that supports the Book of Mormon and not that much that contradicts it. Every single response that I read urged him to actually read the Book of Mormon.

The three most responded to comments did not show a better understanding of the church and responses didn't go too far into doctrine in responding to them, but deeper doctrine was mentioned when the conversations were between two church members.

Choose This Day

The first video who’s comments I would like to explore is called, “Choose This Day” It is produced by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as part of the “Mormon Messages” series, A series made for a broad audience with messages of basic doctrinal truths and family values. 

Many people from different faiths enjoy this video, though even without controversial content some bring controversy with them. 

 Castheman1050 received 74 likes while truthdottcom was ignored. 

It is interesting to see how several members respond in a different (or similar) manner to the same criticism. But before we go any further, it is important to analyze the role of authority and structure of the church. The church is Christian yet it is NOT Protestant or Catholic or Eastern. The church is rooted in the old testament. The first recordings in the Book of Mormon took place in 600 BC and around 400AD Moroni engraved the last book into the plates and buried them in the ground. 

After the death of Christ, his church fell into apostasy and the keys of the priesthood were removed from the Earth before the councils of nicea.  The original church was then restored to the earth in these latter days and the keys of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood were confered upon Joseph Smith by John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John. The most significant part of having the church restored in such a way is that the modern priesthood holders can request their "line of authority" which is just a printed piece of paper tracing their line of authority directly to Jesus Christ.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a living prophet, Thomas S. Monson, who gives revelation today just as prophets of old did.

The result of this authority is that there is very little debate or contention among members. I can think of only a few areas like caffeinated soda, R rated movies, if Kolob is a planet or a star and how much meat you can eat and still be considered "sparingly." And if on October 5th during General Conference President Monson said the caffeinated soda falls into the "hot drinks" category then the conversation would stop there. You don't deny the authority of the Prophet without denying the authority of Christ because that is where it comes from. 

That was a long winded explanation of the church's understanding of authority but it is important to understand when we look at how people respond differently or  similarly to the same question. 

Many have the misconception the Mormons believe that they can be saved by good works and keeping the commandments alone, they are usually Christians who believe that it is by grace and by grace alone (without regards to following commandments or preforming ordinances) that man can be saved. All three responses are doctrinal, they all reinforce the importance of the atonement but that works play a role as well, however each responder has their own way of explaining the same doctrine.

Proposal

“The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state if necessary for the public peace” those were the words used by Lilburn Boggs, governor of Missouri in Executive order #44 of 1838 an execution order against Mormons. Families were forced to leave their homes and forfeit all property by the Missouri State Militia.

Though this order was rescinded in 1976 there are many people who still actively search out members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to attack and persecute them. Dealing with such adversity has been part of what it means to be a member of the church since the restoration. Though, these days the adversary takes a different form. Men do not come to our houses in the middle of the night, beat us unconscious, tar and feather us, as they did to Joseph Smith. However, there are still those who use social media, such as YouTube, to seek out and attack the church and it’s members.

My case study will focus on the response of individual church members to these attacks. I will not be looking at anti-Mormon videos, but anti-Mormon comments and the reactions from individual members to those comments. The videos will be official church videos either from one of the church’s official YouTube channels (Mormon channel, Mormon.org, Mormon newsroom, BYUtelevision, Mormon Tabernacle Choir, BYUDivineComedy) as well as non-official church material (such as General Conference talks) from non-official YouTube channels.  I will be focusing on the comment section from a variety of videos. The videos will range from those discussing deep doctrinal themes to entertainment only videos. I will look at anti comments which get  responses from multiple members and see how they respond differently to the same attack. I will also look at anti comments that have not gotten any response, since ignoring the comment is another way of reacting to persecution.