🏃➡️ Social Media Fasting¶
Estimated time to read: 5 minutes
First, I invite you to participate in a 10-day fast from social media and from any other media that bring negative and impure thoughts to your mind. Pray to know which influences to remove during your fast. The effect of your 10-day fast may surprise you. What do you notice after taking a break from perspectives of the world that have been wounding your spirit? Is there a change in where you now want to spend your time and energy? Have any of your priorities shifted—even just a little? I urge you to record and follow through with each impression.
— Sisters’ Participation in the Gathering of Israel President Russell M. Nelson, President of the Church, General Conference, General Women's Session, 6 October 2018
By my estimation, enough online content exists to warn against societal ills borne of social media. No, it isn't entirely bad and evil, but it doesn't accurately reflect real life to see only the "presentable" angle of your peers. Taking a break from this curated feed is not a bad idea. But, dear reader, I wish to emphasize that we should be cognizant of motives when a public figurehead tells you to step away from it.
Some proportion of humans obtain and consume news primarily or exclusively through social media. For this sample of people, stepping away from social media will limit their intake of news and current events. Why would a public figurehead want to limit your intake of news and current events?
At least six people are suing the daughter and son-in-law of Russell M. Nelson, the president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Neither Nelson nor the Church is named as defendants in this 79-page lawsuit filed in federal court on Wednesday. The allegations of sexual abuse stem back to the early 1980s, accusing Jon and Jane Doe of holding "touching parties" and sexually abusing kids as young as one year old.
— Daughter of LDS Church president at center of decades-old sex abuse cover-up allegations, KUTV; 3 October 2018
Allegations rejected 30 years ago following multiple law enforcement investigations resurfaced Wednesday in a federal lawsuit filed against a daughter and son-in-law of the president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The couple was identified only as John and Jane Doe in the suit, but an attorney for the defendants identified them as Brenda and Richard Miles, the daughter and son-in-law of President Russell M. Nelson, president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, often called the Mormon church.
— Decades-old Bountiful case alleges church connection to abuse allegations, Deseret News; 3 October 2018
I see 3 days elapsing between this news being published and Nelson's General Conference talk. How quickly would scandals like this proliferate? That's unclear to me. I suppose that in the days leading up to Conference Weekend, most believing Mormons are getting hyped up for prophetic insight, and social media algorithms are likely amplifying that hype. I don't recall hearing anything about this incident in October 2018.
What should we make of this?
Was it a coincidence? Did Nelson anticipate this news breaking out near the weekend of General Conference? I can't really say with any level of certainty. Would the attendees of the General Women's Session be more alert and sensitive to the gravity of sexual abuse accusations? Possibly. I can observe that this advice was given in the women's session rather than to the whole church broadly. I don't know if that means it should be given less consideration, though.
I can also observe that Nelson isn't setting parameters nor dates for this fast. He doesn't say to begin immediately, but that can be interpreted in subtext.
To be fair, this allegation is adjacent to Russell, and he appears to not be involved in any real way other than blood relation to the accused. I can also observe that these allegations were concerning events "in the early 1980's," which fits pretty well into the timeline of the Satanic Panic, with folks throwing around accusations of ritual abuse based on loose evidence.
This case was ultimately dismissed in 2020:
The Utah Supreme Court has ruled that a plaintiff’s claims in a high-profile child sex abuse lawsuit against a former federal judge aren’t valid because the claims fall outside of the statute of limitations, despite a 2016 law change meant to give alleged victims of child sex crimes more time to bring up accusations.
... So that's fine, probably.
In 2016, the state legislature passed a bill allowing civil lawsuits against perpetrators of sexual abuse “brought within 35 years of the victim’s 18th birthday, or within three years of the effective date of this [new law], whichever is longer.”
I mean, the laws allowed this accusation to remain valid, but the judge didn't like it so it got dismissed.
