Questions about BYU

[_rcrocket]

It makes me a bit paranoid when folks you might disagree with on doctrine ask you not to be anonymous. I remember how Vicky Prunty from the Tapestry Against Polygamy had received all types of abuse when her name appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune. Some people on the various sites have related how they have been threatened to be turned into their Bishop or Stake President. We had two ladies on Beliefnet go at it tooth and nail when one recognized the other as a fellow member of her Branch in England. That was a mess. It seems to me we can maintain much more harmonious relations with one another (especially the irascible among us) with anonymity.

I see no reason for your paranoia. For those who lurk and look for answers on this Board, I just would like them to plainly understand that those who ridicule and mock the Church are usually anonymous. At least on this Board.

The conclusion you wish to draw from that is that anonymity will protect you from the murderous Danites which inhabit the Church in the form of Bishops and Stake Presidents who are always cruising the internet for additional people to kick out of the Church. (They would rather do that than spend time with their families.)

The conclusion I wish to draw is that your arguments and statements have little to no value if your names are not next to them.

P

[_moksha]

The conclusion you wish to draw from that is that anonymity will protect you from the murderous Danites...

P

When you speak of murderous Danites, it puts it into the realm of the absurd. I am talking about a much more real scenario, where people can be harassed by otherwise nice people who disagree with them. Anonymity helps keep this temptation out of the hands of otherwise nice people.

[_rcrocket]

The conclusion you wish to draw from that is that anonymity will protect you from the murderous Danites...

P

When you speak of murderous Danites, it puts it into the realm of the absurd. I am talking about a much more real scenario, where people can be harassed by otherwise nice people who disagree with them. Anonymity helps keep this temptation out of the hands of otherwise nice people.

I have rarely seen bishops and stake presidents on this board depicted as nice people. They are usually ignorant dupes or maliciously overbearing.

P

[_Roger Morrison]

Hmmm... "anonymous" might be a good thing when not wanting to be praised for contributing $$$$ to charity. Jesus said something about alms in private... Ghost writers have their reasons. Maybe that's what we have here??? Spooky people :-) Ficticious names when presenting fiction???

I think Coggins suggested hiding behind the name-mask allowed one to display some true-self, that for whatever reason, they didn't allow to be public. Probably a sad reality. Some shame involved here...

Net-names seem to be a tradition that newbies just step into. As i did initially. Some cute ones...others???

Seems to fly in the face of the "old" idea of having, and maintaining, a "good-name". I don't see how one can do that by hiding it, or their their true-self?? Probably like the "deal closed with a hand-shake." Belongs in another era due to the retrogressive side of evolving society. Like, win-some, lose-some.

Maybe i'm so old most of my fears are behind and i could care less what anyone thinks of me, as long as they get my name right :-) Warm regards, Roger H. Morrison. OK, i usually hide the "H" :-(

Question: Did this thread start with a question about BYU? IF so...???

[_moksha]

I have rarely seen bishops and stake presidents on this board depicted as nice people. They are usually ignorant dupes or maliciously overbearing.

P

I imagine only a small handful are actually like that.

[_harmony]

The conclusion you wish to draw from that is that anonymity will protect you from the murderous Danites...

P

When you speak of murderous Danites, it puts it into the realm of the absurd. I am talking about a much more real scenario, where people can be harassed by otherwise nice people who disagree with them. Anonymity helps keep this temptation out of the hands of otherwise nice people.

I have rarely seen bishops and stake presidents on this board depicted as nice people. They are usually ignorant dupes or maliciously overbearing.

P

Now that's a lie. I've always been quite complimentary for my bishop and stake president. They are both fine men, trying their best to do their task. (it's the ones in California I worry about... and one in AZ, but that's another story). On the other hand, I wonder what they (other people's local leaders) are thinking sometimes, when I hear some of the stories of what they say or do.

[_Bond...James Bond]

Question: Did this thread start with a question about BYU? IF so...???

Yep. And I got the answer I wanted from Mak. Thanks for the link by the way.

But of course one question opens fingers into a ton of other things and this thread has mushroomed. I thought the political poll I had would get alot of debate, not some question of mine about BYU.

On anonymous posting:

I think there are a few reasons people want to be anonymous.

1) Real personal reasons. Some people want to debate or argue or examine issues, but don't want their personal names out there because of what kind of flak they may catch from whomever. Obviously some people are fine with there names being used, and it often give some weight to arguments if that person is a high profile or highly educated person (Peterson and Hamblin and the rest...highly educated people).

2) Some people want to focus on the argument. The argument may be more objective in some people's minds if they are just a name compared to a personality (whether academic or layman). OF course this also allows trolls and the like, its a double edged sword.

3) Some people just want to be anonymous. They want to escape for a while and just talk about what's on their mind on a certain subject (which may be very controversial or something completely out of their regular behavior) without having to be personally attacked. Sitting around the living room and saying something highly controversial about someone's faith may harm personal friendships or family relationships, but online its just someone else sitting at a computer somewhere. I guess that goes along with #1 but I think its also about stepping outside one's skin for a while and examining something or looking at it from another point of view.

But I don't think being anonymous necessarily means no weight should be given to an argument. I think the argument should be looked at in its own right rather than being outright disregarded. Just my opinion.

Bond

Edit: I classify myself as a number 3. I'm the real me for 20 some odd hours a day. The time I spend online I like to be anonymous so that I can escape from the rigors of the real world.

[_rcrocket]

On anonymous posting:

I think there are a few reasons people want to be anonymous.

Again, for the umpteenth time. I don't really criticize anonymous posting all that much. In fact, hardly at all.

I criticize anonymous hypocritical posting; people claiming to be TBM in real life and coming onto public boards and being critical of the Church and living persons (GBH, their stake president, their bishop, DCP, Hamblin) on it. These are those, in my humble opinion, are the white-washed sepluchres who will be found wanting in the world to come. Clean looking on the outside, putrid on the inside.

The internet does not give those people a license to pretend to be one thing and say another. If you, Bond, do not claim to be TBM than my comments are not directed to you.

P

[_Bond...James Bond]

On anonymous posting:

I think there are a few reasons people want to be anonymous.

Again, for the umpteenth time. I don't really criticize anonymous posting all that much. In fact, hardly at all.

I criticize anonymous hypocritical posting; people claiming to be TBM in real life and coming onto public boards and being critical of the Church and living persons (GBH, their stake president, their bishop, DCP, Hamblin) on it. These are those, in my humble opinion, are the white-washed sepluchres who will be found wanting in the world to come. Clean looking on the outside, putrid on the inside.

The internet does not give those people a license to pretend to be one thing and say another. If you, Bond, do not claim to be TBM than my comments are not directed to you.

P

Gotcha. Thought it was a general question about anonymous posting.

[_moksha]

I criticize anonymous hypocritical posting; people claiming to be TBM in real life and coming onto public boards and being critical of the Church and living persons (GBH, their stake president, their bishop, DCP, Hamblin) on it. These are those, in my humble opinion, are the white-washed sepulchers who will be found wanting in the world to come. Clean looking on the outside, putrid on the inside.

P

Someone dares criticize DCP? Surely, hellfire awaits that person!

Here is a question for you Plutarch, if a Catholic does not think the Pope is infallible, must they inevitably be found wanting in the world to come? I am assuming they too have people or maybe a squadron judging for obedience and doctrinal error - or at least they did prior to the Age of Enlightenment.