DiscussMormonism.com

Equality wrote:Yes, people use their real names when they register. They also provide a nickname for their nametags. Most regular posters have known pseudonyms (mine is Equality, obviously). So if, say, "Randy J" or "SL Cabbie" registers, Dianne probably knows it. Likewise, if "Equality" registers, she knows I am from the FLAK board. I don't doubt there are some folks who post at RfM who might register and Dianne wouldn't necessarily peg them as RfMers, but I think she has a good enough idea about who has registered to express an informed opinion about whether "90%" of the registrants are from RfM.

Are they required to provide a nickname? For example, if I register for this conference, could I not use the short version of my real name as my nickname? And whose to say I don't provide someone else's nickname for my nametag? I could go as truthdancer (except she's a sweetie and I'm not) or Trixie (except she's... well... lots smarter about horses than I am) or Jersey Girl (except I don't own any overalls). Heck, I could even go as Alter Idem!

See what I mean?

I would not want anyone to know I'm harmony on MDB; I don't want either side to connect the dots of who I am. One of the conference presenters already knows who I am; I wouldn't want to enlarge that group by much. My personal stalker, the Z trolls and the Mr Itchy incident are enough to keep me protecting my anonymity at all costs.

LifeOnaPlate wrote:
The last url should be changed to "ExMormonKnow" me thinks. ;)

In the list you site above is the issue of plausibility. As you point out, my best tactic must be to refer you elsewhere. I should point out, though I will be accused of trying to squirm out of the cold, hard "facts," that most of your issues come down to translation method of the Book of Mormon itself. The assumptions one approaches the discussion with will influence the conclusions, as yours clearly do. Given that I am far from interested spending my time trying to convince someone of your investment (and apparent hostility which may or may not be due to the Internet stripping our comments of emotion and leaving them open to interpretation) I recommend Brant Gardner's Second Witness. A new and most excellent Book of Mormon commentary not unwilling to admit problematic or rough areas. I am enjoying it a lot.

Regards,

BHodges

You see Dianne, the problem is you and your hostility. If only if drink deeply at the fountain of Brant, you will change your evil ways.

John Larsen wrote:You see Dianne, the problem is you and your hostility. If only if drink deeply at the fountain of Brant, you will change your evil ways.

Misrepresentation.

LifeOnaPlate wrote:

John Larsen wrote:You see Dianne, the problem is you and your hostility. If only if drink deeply at the fountain of Brant, you will change your evil ways.

Misrepresentation.

Terse accusation.

John Larsen wrote:

LifeOnaPlate wrote:Misrepresentation.

Terse accusation.

Inbred Redneck.

harmony wrote:

Equality wrote:Yes, people use their real names when they register. They also provide a nickname for their nametags. Most regular posters have known pseudonyms (mine is Equality, obviously). So if, say, "Randy J" or "SL Cabbie" registers, Dianne probably knows it. Likewise, if "Equality" registers, she knows I am from the FLAK board. I don't doubt there are some folks who post at RfM who might register and Dianne wouldn't necessarily peg them as RfMers, but I think she has a good enough idea about who has registered to express an informed opinion about whether "90%" of the registrants are from RfM.

Are they required to provide a nickname? For example, if I register for this conference, could I not use the short version of my real name as my nickname? And whose to say I don't provide someone else's nickname for my nametag? I could go as truthdancer (except she's a sweetie and I'm not) or Trixie (except she's... well... lots smarter about horses than I am) or Jersey Girl (except I don't own any overalls). Heck, I could even go as Alter Idem!

See what I mean?

I would not want anyone to know I'm harmony on MDB; I don't want either side to connect the dots of who I am. One of the conference presenters already knows who I am; I wouldn't want to enlarge that group by much. My personal stalker, the Z trolls and the Mr Itchy incident are enough to keep me protecting my anonymity at all costs.

I suppose there is some number of purely anonymous people who register. So I guess Dianne can't give us a precise percentage of registrants who are "RfM Clowns." But I still think she has enough information to refute the 90% number.

I'll be there. I'm not an RfMer. :)

Sorry, I've been gone to a thoroughly enjoyable FLAK and NOM lunch. Imagine that! Fraternizing with people who aren't RfM!

Equality has it right. Thanks for the defense while I was gone, Equality.

For those who checked out the Conference site, it clearly asks what information is desired on the name tags, whether a real name or an alias, and optional board name or email address (for those who post on email lists using their email address for identification). People are free to choose what information they want to use.

I personally know a great many people who register for the conference. I also know where many people post using their board names because I go to most of the boards on a weekly basis to post CALM events. If you aren't aware of CALM, you can check it out here: http://calm-ut.blogspot.com/

So I just checked the registrations to get a feel for percentages, and about 7% post on RfM, which is FAR, FAR from 90%, even allowing for those I wouldn't know who post on RfM. There are registrations from, in alphabetical order, CALM, FLAK, Foundation members, MormonCurtain, MormonDiscussions, newspaper ads, NOM, PostMormon, and Yahoo and email listserves. There are a great big number not affiliated with any site. So how do I know the non-affiliated aren't RfM? Because I know many of them personally.

This is the end of my participation on this topic.

The last url should be changed to "ExMormonKnow" me thinks. ;)

Methinks you didn’t check it out, because the first page belies “ExMormon”.

It seems your "standard of evidence, verification, and critical thinking" are measured by how much they already agree with your opinion (usually the opinion of other writers) on those particular subjects.

I would say this is a perfect description of yourself. As for me, I was a true believer looking for supporting evidence. When the evidence showed otherwise, I was rational enough to alter my opinion.

issues come down to translation method of the Book of Mormon itself.

Ya mean like lookin’ at a peepstone with his face in a hat and gold plates in the woods? That real translation method? Or the fake ‘translating from the gold plates’ method? No wonder your blog talks about increasingly questioning members.

Yeah, I know, that’s not what you meant, but I couldn’t resist. So God’s inspiration and revelation was hit and miss, trial and error? And you are okay with this excuse making cop-out?

The assumptions one approaches the discussion with will influence the conclusions, as yours clearly do.

Again, this is a better description of yourself than it is of me. You have made an assumption as to how I approached the discussion.

Since the reality is that I approached the discussion with true believer assumptions and conclusions, then why did I change my mind when faced with the evidence? Some of us are wise enough to follow the evidence to reach the conclusion, instead of the other way around only looking for confirmation. Are you?

A new and most excellent Book of Mormon commentary not unwilling to admit problematic or rough areas

Doesn’t your own description give you a clue that all is not well in Zion? I’ll read it because that’s what I’ve always done. I read everything on all sides, and then form my opinion based on the evidence. Do you read the other side?

Here’s a couple for you, with no admissions of problematic or rough areas:
“Demon Haunted World”- by Carl Sagan
“Guns, Germs, and Steel”- by Jared Diamond

Diane---Thank you for sharing details of the conference with us.

Sorry if you have received some flak. It seems like everyone has been a bit testy around here lately.

For what it's worth, welcome to the board. I'm one of the Moderators here, so if you have any questions, please feel free to PM me.

:)

Liz