The Mockingboard.

[_rcrocket]

And you are holding to a false position, but hold away.

Happy new year!

Rest easy with your cowardly anonymity.

P

[_beastie]

I am unfamiliar with the blog. Nor do I care. My position remains the same.

Aw, gee, and here I thought you were the enemy of cowardly anonymity everywhere!!!

[_harmony]

I am unfamiliar with the blog. Nor do I care. My position remains the same.

Aw, gee, and here I thought you were the enemy of cowardly anonymity everywhere!!!

On the contrary, there is some cowardly anonymity Plu applauds. Sauce/goose, sauce/gander is a concept he doesn't understand.

[_keene]

If you don't want people criticizing (mocking) what you hold dear, then don't drag it out in front of them and expect them to respect it. Keep it in your heart and shut the hell up.

You all are so damned confused or you just don't want to read my posts.

I don't care if you mock. I don't get offended. I don't get upset. I am not shocked. I am not concerned. MM, Harmony, Rollie, MS, mock all you want! More of it! It entertains me! Say anything you want, on any topic and I can respond if I have time or interest. Rollie: If you think that it is fundamentally wrong to assume that one should never criticize the brethren, then by all means let loose! Let her rip.

My point is and remains: You are cowards to mock (or criticize, if you choose) in a public forum anonymously. You are hypocrites if you do so and otherwise hold yourself out to be members in good standing.

The way all of you choose to respond to my challenge is to say the following: (1) you are not mocking. (2) criticism is not mocking. (3) it is OK to mock. (4) If I don't like mocking, the get the hell away from here.

You simply ignore my core point about your cowardice and hypocrisy. But I repeat myself.

P

How is it hypocrisy? How is it cowardice? Of course we post anonymously, that's how the place is set up. If we held meetings and checked ID at the door, then we'd do it that way. Some of us often do go out publicly. Hell, I've even invited everyone to my wedding! It's anonymous because that's the standard of communication in this area -- not because we need to hide.

Another grand purpose of anonymity is so that what we say can be judged by face value, rather than by prejudged assumptions about our character. It has nothing to do with cowardice or hypocrisy, it's a literary technique. Even J.K. Rowling decided to use her initials instead of her name, so people wouldn't judge her as a woman.

And, why is it wrong, or hypocritical, or cowardly, to criticize the church while being a member in good standing?

[_Dr. Shades]

I agree with Keene.

Anonymity on this board isn't necessarily to hoodwink one's ecclesiastical leaders; it's simply a good idea all-around for a multitude of reasons. "Mr. Itchy" is an excellent object lesson for the wisdom of retaining one's anonymity.

In fact, the only reason we even require registration is to fool the spam-bots. If there were no such thing as spammers, we wouldn't require registration at all.

[_beastie]

Personally, with the nutty people in the world, many of whom seem drawn to the internet in particular, I think anyone should think twice about using their real name - particularly females. It's a shame the world is that way, but it is. This fetish some believers have about anonymous posting is silly.

[_Yoda]

I agree with Keene.

Anonymity on this board isn't necessarily to hoodwink one's ecclesiastical leaders; it's simply a good idea all-around for a multitude of reasons.

Agreed...and most of these are safety issues.

It's interesting that Plutarch refuses to at least address this concern and explain his reasoning, when he, himself, uses an alias for job related purposes, and has admitted to such on prior threads on this board and others.

Again, Plutarch, do you care to explain your position regarding this, and why you are now claiming that simply holding an alias is hypocritical? You have been asked by several of us to explain your position.

Could it be that you don't have a logical answer?

[_Jason Bourne]

And you are holding to a false position, but hold away.

Happy new year!

Rest easy with your cowardly anonymity.

P

As I told you before, those that count know my views and how I feel. I owe you nothing nor do I anyone else here. Gloat mightily in your self perceived superiority.

[_rcrocket]

Permit me to expand further on my comments about the cowardly hypocrites who post this Board.

Keene: Of course we post anonymously, that's how the place is set up.

I've heard many of you make this argument; Harmony, Liz and now Keene. Basically, the argument goes, that anonymous posting is acceptable because it is de rigeur. "That is how it is."

Please understand that my criticism is of those who post anonymously, who attack the Church and living persons within it, and tell us here that they are active, temple-going members of the Church. It is a combination of these things which lead me to my criticism. Mere anonymity is no big deal to me. A person who is not anonymous and who posts criticisms of the Church and living persons within it have their own battles to fight but the ravings of such a person (i.e, Tal Bachman, Bob McCue, and Dan Vogel) I can respect for as far as they go. Moreover, a person who is anonymous and who posts criticisms of the Church and living persons, but who admits he or she is out of the Church, is no big deal; such a person is not hypocritical. My main criticism of this Board goes to hypocrisy, the sin the Savior seemed to condemn the most of any.
So, my criticisms are directed to the cowardly (i.e., anonymous) hypocrites (i.e., who condemn the church publicly, but also claim to be active temple-going members).

Such posters doing so, because it is de rigeur, does not excuse the wrong. Because "everybody is doing it" does not make it courageous or non-hypocritical.

Harmony: On the contrary, there is some cowardly anonymity Plu applauds.

I do not applaud cowardly anonymity in any form by any person.

Harmony:

Fabricating witness statements (Joseph Smith)
Signing fabricated witness statements (8 witnesses)
Lying to Congress (Wilford Woodruff)
Lying to the police (Gordon B Hinckley)
Living on church donations while telling the public we don't pay our clergy (Gordon B Hinckley and several others)
Beating one's wife and one's neighbor (Joseph F Smith)
Lying to the members about finances (every prophet since 1959)

This is an example of a cowardly hypocritical post. (It is also inept and inaccurate, but that is another story.) Here, we have a woman who claims to be an active temple-going Saint but lacks the guts to put her name to the above charges and claims. She feels more comfortable making drive-by pot shots against the Church and living persons within it than standing up for her convictions in a material way.

MM: but we are easily dismissed as hypocrites if we do not live the Celestial law.

Never have I done so. You are simply restating my argument to make it appear absurd.

liz3564: It's interesting that Plutarch refuses to at least address this concern and explain his reasoning, when he, himself, uses an alias for job related purposes, and has admitted to such on prior threads on this board and others.

You have made this argument before. It is inaccurate. This is the only board in which I have ever used a pseudonym. I post as rcrocket on ZLMB and FAIR. Here, I post with a pseudonym but I also frequently and often state my name and location. My name is so well known that it has not stopped former members of the Church who post on this board to threaten to expose me (for what, I cannot imagine) to my employer (I am self-employed) and to my stake president.

Pseudonymity is not anonymity.

liz3564: "safety issues."

This does not justify cowardly hypocrisy. Your argument is akin to saying that one can commit a rape so long as one uses a condom. After all, you are being "safe" as far as you are concerned, but you have no concern about the "safety" of your victim.

Jason Bourne: “your self perceived superiority.”

Be careful using this argument against somebody who simply points out your weaknesses. It argues from a weak position. I don't see powerful posters on FAIR, either pro or con Mormonism, ever resort to this argument. You are weak to cloak yourself with anonymity and occasionally post hits against the Church and faithful members within it and, on the other hand, claim to be a member in good standing. I don’t need to be perfect to make that particular obvservation.

[_Jason Bourne]

Ok P,

I am damned coward and hypocrite.

I wil remain so though, and not be bullied by you.

Happy now?

This is just not worth the calories I burn typing an argument agains it.

Funny though. This seems to be your Trump card. I see little substance with valid issues.

But I would ask you, as I have before.

What would you have members do who really so have valid questions, conerns and yes, even criticisms? You exemplify why so many would fear to bring up things that they are concerned about in a public way. If I recalll you are bishop. Based on the way you are here I be fearful of bringing up anything contrary to you if you were my bishop. Fortunatly for me I have leaders that I can and do discuss all the things that you think I am so awful for brining up without fearing some reaction or punishment from a rigid monolithic Mormon leader. You may be different in real life, and you say you are. I just don't see it here.

Anyway. I would hope were we present in real life we could have a decent rigirous discussion about various issues.