The Mockingboard.

[_rcrocket]

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 have confused my criticism of rank hypocrisy and cowardice with my view of Gospel and the Church and those who have questions. Asking questions is not a basis for discipline.

[_Mister Scratch]

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."

I, for one, think it's better to post anonymously in order to try and curtail the ad hominem attacks that are stock-in-trade for TBM apologists such as yourself.

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).

Basically, this is just a reiteration of the Church's hardcore, non-tolerant stance on dissidents. Why not just come out and say, "I demand that everybody march in lockstep!"

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.

People have already made it clear that they post anonymously for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to:
---Avoiding ad hominem attacks
---Internet safety
---Being able to speak freely

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

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

So do you think I should stick juliann and Pahoran's in real life names back up on my blog?

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.

I have a question: is this really a moral issue for you? Or is this some scheme to try and ferret out the dissenters you cannot tolerate? In particular, which criticisms bug you the most? After all, much of the criticism here is aimed at changing certain aspects of the Church. So: Which aspect of the Church are you most afraid of seeing changed? That's basically what this all comes down to, isn't it? A fear of change?

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.

Frankly, this is a pretty sickening, insensitive, below-the-belt analogy, P. Airing criticism of controversial aspects of the Church doesn't come anywhere close to the gravity and seriousness of rape. It's quite telling that you would think to use this as an analogy, though.

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.

[/quote]

Bull. juliann's extended, labyrinthine shuffle involving the sociology of NRMs makes exactly this argument. As she confessed the other day, the whole raison d'etre for using the Bromley text is merely to prevent exmos from labeling the Church a "cult."

[_Yoda]

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.

As far as you posting a psuedonymn, I was only stating what you, yourself, have stated as your reasons. If I misread you, then I apologize. I honestly can't remember whether you stated your reasoning on this board, or Shade's prior board. It could have also been on Kevin's board, which I help manage.

The safety issues I am referring to are Internet safety issues, which you seem to either be oblivious to, or have no use for, which is fine. That is certainly your prerrogative. As I stated quite plainly before, and Keene, Beastie, and others have also reaffirmed, the main reason most people use aliases online is to deflect Internet crimes such as identity theft and/or stalking.

I, for one, as an active Church member, am not ashamed of anything I have said here, or in other religious forums I have participated in, including FAIR.

I have not condemned the Church. I do, however, have differing perspectives on issues, and enjoy discussing these things with others. If that makes me a hypocrite in your eyes, then so be it. I don't really care one way or the other.

I don't see myself as being a hypocrite, and I don't believe that God does, either.

[_rcrocket]

I, for one, think it's better to post anonymously in order to try and curtail the ad hominem attacks that are stock-in-trade for TBM apologists such as yourself.

I don't consider myself learned enough to be an apologist and I am not an apologist. I don't think you know much about ad hominem attacks. You and one or two others on this board seem to invoke that phrase anytime you see an argument you don't like. Why is that?

So do you think I should stick juliann and Pahoran's in real life names back up on my blog?

Your question about "outing" somebody is unrelated to my condemnation of your cowardly hypocrisy. I have no clue whether you have a blog, and I only know "juliann" from the posts you make here. So, feel free to "out" anybody you want, in my opinion.

I have a question: is this really a moral issue for you?

It is a "moral" issue to the extent the term applies to ethics, not sexual misconduct. If that is the way you use "moral," you are an immoral person. I wouldn't really phrase it as "morals."

Or is this some scheme to try and ferret out the dissenters you cannot tolerate? In particular, which criticisms bug you the most? After all, much of the criticism here is aimed at changing certain aspects of the Church. So: Which aspect of the Church are you most afraid of seeing changed? That's basically what this all comes down to, isn't it? A fear of change?

You simply choose to misread my position. Bring on the challenges! State whatever criticisms or ask whatever questions you have! It is entertaining and informative to me. "Fear of change?" Feel free to advocate for it. I would prefer that women have the priesthood, for example. My comment is simply that you are a coward and a hypocrite not to put your name next to your public positions. Are your positions not worthy of attribution?

Bull. juliann's extended, labyrinthine shuffle involving the sociology of NRMs makes exactly this argument. As she confessed the other day, the whole raison d'etre for using the Bromley text is merely to prevent exmos from labeling the Church a "cult."

Your obsession with MAD/FAIR is astoundingly perverse. [What the hell is a NRM? Who the hell is Bromley?] So, you measure my observations of your cowardly hypocrisy against what somebody else, whom I don't know, says on another board about a topic with which I have no familiarity?

You are banned from MAD/FAIR; I am not. You read it with a passion. I hardly ever. How perverse is that?

P

[_Brackite]

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.

Oh, you will pretty please stop your holier than thou attitude here with Jason. Please, Enough already! Good-grief!

[_Yoda]

I do have a follow-up question for you, Plutarch. If you think we are all a bunch of hypocrites here, and you feel that Shade's board is, indeed, a "Mockingboard", then why do you choose to participate?

If this forum is that distasteful to you, then it seems to me that YOU are the one being hypocritical in participating here.

[_Mister Scratch]

I, for one, think it's better to post anonymously in order to try and curtail the ad hominem attacks that are stock-in-trade for TBM apologists such as yourself.

I don't consider myself learned enough to be an apologist and I am not an apologist.

Then how do you explain your article, which was published in FROB---the chief LDS apologetic publication?

I don't think you know much about ad hominem attacks. You and one or two others on this board seem to invoke that phrase anytime you see an argument you don't like. Why is that?

No, I invoke when I see it. It is *you* who appears to misunderstand what the logical fallacy entails. Basically, what you've been saying in this thread (as a subtext to your argument) is that no one should have a right to criticize the Church unless that person attaches his or her name to the criticism. And why should this be necessary? Why shouldn't the argument be viewed on its own terms?

So do you think I should stick juliann and Pahoran's in real life names back up on my blog?

Your question about "outing" somebody is unrelated to my condemnation of your cowardly hypocrisy. I have no clue whether you have a blog, and I only know "juliann" from the posts you make here. So, feel free to "out" anybody you want, in my opinion.

I have a hard time believing that you don't know who juliann is. Also, don't you think that, in order to elide charges of hypocrisy against yourself, that you ought to condemn anonymity over at MAD and ZLMB, too?

I have a question: is this really a moral issue for you?

It is a "moral" issue to the extent the term applies to ethics, not sexual misconduct. If that is the way you use "moral," you are an immoral person. I wouldn't really phrase it as "morals."

Whatever. The bottomline is that you want to know everybody's in real life identities so you can berate them, or turn them over to the SCMC. You want to be able to attack people personally.

Or is this some scheme to try and ferret out the dissenters you cannot tolerate? In particular, which criticisms bug you the most? After all, much of the criticism here is aimed at changing certain aspects of the Church. So: Which aspect of the Church are you most afraid of seeing changed? That's basically what this all comes down to, isn't it? A fear of change?

You simply choose to misread my position. Bring on the challenges! State whatever criticisms or ask whatever questions you have! It is entertaining and informative to me. "Fear of change?" Feel free to advocate for it. I would prefer that women have the priesthood, for example. My comment is simply that you are a coward and a hypocrite not to put your name next to your public positions. Are your positions not worthy of attribution?

But the fact of the matter is that I *do* put my name next to my positions: my name is Mister Scratch. And anyways, if my positions are worthwhile, then whatever "attribution" I put on them ought to be irrelevant. Don't you agree? I.e., would it truly make that much of a difference if I was an eighty-year-old woman living in India? Or a twelve-year-old kid from Montreal? If your answer is "yes," then I am in the right to post anonymously. You want people to list their names so you can pigeonhole them and slather on the stereotypes.

Bull. juliann's extended, labyrinthine shuffle involving the sociology of NRMs makes exactly this argument. As she confessed the other day, the whole raison d'etre for using the Bromley text is merely to prevent exmos from labeling the Church a "cult."

Your obsession with MAD/FAIR is astoundingly perverse. [What the hell is a NRM? Who the hell is Bromley?] So, you measure my observations of your cowardly hypocrisy against what somebody else, whom I don't know, says on another board about a topic with which I have no familiarity?

You are banned from MAD/FAIR; I am not. You read it with a passion. I hardly ever. How perverse is that?

P

I fail to see your point. Other than the fact that this is pretty obviously a red herring, I don't know why you would think that reading posts on the fittingly named MAD board constitutes "perversity."

Edited to add: You know, P., I can't help but think that this is your means of grumping over getting exposed on your MMM letter distortion. You hemmed and hawed for weeks, trying to avoid being held accountable for that. Once you finally caved in and posted the text---lo, and behold!---it turned out you omitted key details. Look: we can understand your embarrassment over that, but there's no need to point the dirty end of the stick and everyone because of it. Just get over it, man.

[_rcrocket]

I do have a follow-up question for you, Plutarch. If you think we are all a bunch of hypocrites here, and you feel that Shade's board is, indeed, a "Mockingboard", then why do you choose to participate?

If this forum is that distasteful to you, then it seems to me that YOU are the one being hypocritical in participating here.

You just aren't reading my posts. I find this board entertaining. The points that are made are interesting. But, I see the position of the main protagonists of this board remarkably hypocritical. I am just pointing out what seems rather obvious.

P

[_rcrocket]

I don't consider myself learned enough to be an apologist and I am not an apologist.

Then how do you explain your article, which was published in FROB---the chief LDS apologetic publication?

I was invited to publish an article in an area of my personal expertise -- history of legal proceedings in territorial Utah. That subject, nor the Mountain Meadows Massacre, has not really surfaced here on this board. I am truly a lay observer and not an intellectual nor an apologist.

I have a hard time believing that you don't know who juliann is.

I can gather who she is from the bad things said about her on this board. From what you say about her she is an ignorant fool and I have no evidence or experience to counter that. But I don't perversely follow her every written word and then comment upon it.

Also, don't you think that, in order to elide charges of hypocrisy against yourself, that you ought to condemn anonymity over at MAD and ZLMB, too?

I'm not familiar with the word "elide". I condemn hypocritical anonymity here and on any other board. The Internet is not a license to defame and injure living persons. You think you can get away with it by being anonymous. The vile and nasty things said here on this board about Pres. Hinckley, Dr. Peterson, and Dr. Hamblin are good examples.

The bottomline is that you want to know everybody's in real life identities so you can berate them, or turn them over to the SCMC. You want to be able to attack people personally.

There is no evidence of that. If you will check my prior posts with Bob McCue and Tal Bachman, whom I know are real persons, the worst I get is call McCue a "moron" for his blathering posts. But I respect their willingness to use their real names.

I challenge you to use your real name when you post against the Church. I challenge you to do so so that you, as well as I do today, will know that my words can be used against me in the future and thus I must use them wisely and not recklessly.

I can't help but think that this is your means of grumping over getting exposed on your MMM letter distortion. You hemmed and hawed for weeks, trying to avoid being held accountable for that. Once you finally caved in and posted the text---lo, and behold!---it turned out you omitted key details. Look: we can understand your embarrassment over that, but there's no need to point the dirty end of the stick and everyone because of it. Just get over it, man.

Discussions of substance are what we should be having here, whether it be a letter involving the MMM or theology or history. But have the courage, man, to put your name behind your statements.

P

[_rcrocket]

Oh, you will pretty please stop your holier than thou attitude here with Jason. Please, Enough already! Good-grief!

I consider myself superior to Jason B in only one regard. I am willing to make posts with my real name.

P