Plutarch wrote:We ask, how are we to trust and listen to your statments when you, on the one hand, use anonymity to ridicule the Church and its brethren, and on the other hand, claim publicly to be a "TR holding active member with multiple callings." Your posts on this board would lead to church discipline, and clearly so because little of it is carefully couched, and for that reason you lack the courage to use your name.
So now one can be "disciplined" for trashing BYU?! in my opinion, Harmony would not be punished for her exercise of free speech here (I'm really surprised that you, as a lawyer, seem to have such apparent disdain for free expression and debate). And if she did reveal her real name, what would you do -- sic the SCMC on her? My God, man, what is it with you and your threats of Church discipline?!
Ok, rant over. Now let's have a history lesson. If you think anything is wrong with anonymity, take it up with the Lord, because He "inspired" Joseph Smith to use anonymity several times in LDS canon. As I'm sure you are well aware, many revelations received by Joseph between 1832 and 1834, and which appeared in the original 1835 D&C, contained numerous pseudonyms for actual persons and places (even Jesus had one!). These pseudonyms appeared in the original D&C sections 77, 81, 89, 93, 100, 101 and 102 (currently numbered as D&C sections 78, 82, 92, 96, 103, 104 and 105). All of these revelations deal, to some degree, with temporal matters such as the united firm and Church-owned properties (i.e., financial issues). As originally given, the recorded revelations did not contain pseudonyms; they were added later when the D&C was to be first published in 1835. Not all such persons were finally indentified until the D&C version published in 1981 (you can still see some of the pseudonyms in present-day D&C 82:11).
The reasons for the pseudonyms being added post-revelation come from Orson Pratt. In a letter to BY, Orson Pratt said:
"When the Kirtland edition of the Book of Covenants was arranged for the printer, it was considered best to substitute fictitious names for the real names obtained in certain revelations relative to stewardship of firm; & this was done that their creditors in Cainhannoch (i.e., New York) should not take advantage of this church firm; But now, as the firm no longer exists, and the members of it are mostly dead either temporally or spiritually, would it not be wisdom to publish in our next edition the real names of places, things, & persons as they are contained in the original manuscripts?"
(Letter dated Nov. 20, 1852, from Orson Pratt to Brigham Young,
Brigham Young Collection, LDS Church Archives).
Thus, it appears a big reason for the pseudonyms was to hide Church leaders from creditors (remember, the revelations with pseudonyms deal with financial issues and property).
As to how this decision was made (Orson attributed the changes to Joseph), Orson Pratt reveals this:
"When at length the time arrived to print the manuscripts, it was thought best not to publish them all, on account of our enemies, who were seeking every means to destroy the Prophet and the Church. On account, however, of the great anxiety of the church to see them in print, it was concluded,
through the suggestions of the Spirit, that by altering the real names given in the manuscripts, and substituting fictitious ones in their stead, they might thus safely appear in print without endangering the welfare of the individuals whose real names were contained therein. It was by this means that several revelations were permitted to appear in print perhaps for many long years, or at least until more favorable circumstances would have permitted them to be made public."
(Orson Pratt, "Explanation of Substituted Names in the Covenants,"
The Seer 2 (March 1854), p. 228, and
Millennial Star 16 (March 18, 1854), pp. 171-73 (emphasis added)).
Thus, if Orson is correct, it was
the Lord's idea for Church leaders to use anonymity when discussing financial issues, in order to keep creditors at bay. How is this use of anonymity any different than how it is being used by Harmony, me, or anyone else on this bb?
I realize that constitutional restraints on free speech due not to apply to the LDS Church, but their underlying principles are admirable, and, I think, instructive here. In
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), the U.S. Supreme Court discussed these principles within the context of anonymity. In upholding this country's strong tradition of anonymity, the court noted (quotes below are separated if they do not follow one another in the opinion; emphasis added):
Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind (quoting Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960)).
Great works of literature have frequently been produced by authors writing under assumed names (referring to Mark Twain, O. Henry, as well as various pseudonyms used by Benjamin Franklin).
Despite readers' curiousity and the public's interest in identifying the creator of a work of art, an author generally is free to decide whether or not to disclose her true identity. The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible.
Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all (quoting Justice Black in Talley).
[Justice Black in Talley] recalled England's abusive press licensing laws and seditious libel prosecutions, and he reminded us that even the arguments favoring the ratification of the Constitution advanced in the Federalist Papers were published under fictitious names.
The
McIntyre Court also noted that this country's "secret ballot" system stems from the "right to vote one's conscience without fear of retaliation."
I know, I know, you will argue that such legal opinions have no bearing on the Church. This is technically correct, but since we LDS believe that the Lord Himself inspired the men who created the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights), should not these admirable principles undergirding certain freedoms, as expressed in
McIntyre, give you (and the Church) some pause in your efforts to strip Harmony (or anyone else) of her anonymity so that the Church can 'find her out' and discipline her for expressing her opinions? I think so, and I think the Lord would agree (if His inspiring Joseph to use pseudonyms to preserve early Church leaders' anonymity from their creditors, is any indication).
Just my $.02.