Questions about BYU

[_harmony]

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

Whoa, wait a minute. I missed this the first time around, but are you saying being critical of the foolishness of professors at BYU is forbidden?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I have never threatened to report anybody to the Church, and I have made that clear many times.

But your constant refrain about discipline and punishment sure sounds threatening.

My challenge has not been to mere anonymity but to anonymous posters who (1) claim to be temple-recommend holding members of the church and (2) ridicule and mock the Church and living persons in it. The sin is not anonymity (cowardice may not be a sin but a character defect) but hypocrisy.

But there are many good reasons for writing anonymously, which was the primary point of my long post -- the Lord, Church leaders, Founding Fathers, and Supreme Court all had good reasons to support anonymity, as do those who post anonymously here.

Thus, all your posts about government and D&C anonymity mean nothing to me.

Obviously. I am surprised, however, that a self-proclaimed 'libertarian' and professional lawyer can have such utter disdain for free expression in the form of anonymous writing.

Anonymity is protected discourse under the First Amendment, but that protection has no analogue in private organizations and especially organizations that are themselves protected by the First Amendment.

I noted in my post that consitutional protections are not binding on private organizations; however, my point was that the principles behind such constitutional protections are admirable and, therefore, are instructive for individuals and private organizations in their treatment of others. Throw in the belief that the Lord had a strong influence in the creation of those protections, and I think it behooves all of us to apply those principles in our lives.

A core element of your persona, of Harmony, of Jason Osbourne, and of MS is that you are active temple recommend holders in the Church.

How is that "core" to anyone other than to us as individuals?

Harmony invokes this credo at every turn to put an extra exclamation point on her apostasy.

No, she raises the point when folks like you falsely accuse her of apostasy. The fact she mentions her TR is in direct response to you judgmental statements.

As I read my New Testament, hypocrisy ranks, as a sin, higher than any other sin condemned in the New Testament. Aside from the shedding of innocent blood and denial of the Holy Ghost. But, I think that the hypocrisy evidenced on this board by those who claim to be TBM but are really apostates approach the much greater sin.

I don't see that "hypocrisy," because having a TR does not mean we consider ourselves "TBM" -- I certainly don't feel that I am a "TBM." But I do hold a TR, and rightfully so, in my opinion. If I am wrong about this, then the Lord will take care of it (just as He will with those TR-holders who claim to be Christians, but who adopt a persona on this bb that is antithetical to how Christ treated others).

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I see no reason for your paranoia.

But yet you bring up Church discipline and punishment all the time. You just don't get it.

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.

Do you honestly believe lurkers on this bb can't figure that out on their own?

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.)

All one has to do is review the death threat received by Steve Benson, Mike Quinn, and Martha Beck, to realize there are some crazy kooks out there who do not like LDS dissenters.

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.

Go re-read my long post -- I quote several reasons given by the Supreme Court for the proposition that anonymous writing has great value and is a long-honored tradition in the U.S.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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.

Again, for the umpteenth time, I have never claimed to be "TBM." A TR does not equate with TBM, in my opinion. And we don't "criticize" living persons -- we debate, perhaps critically, certain rules, actions, procedures, policies, traditions, culture, etc., we see as troublesome, confusing or questionable.

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.

Now you sound like a GA-wannabe.

The internet does not give those people a license to pretend to be one thing and say another.

I certainly haven't done this, nor do I think others have whom you attack.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Whoa, wait a minute. I missed this the first time around, but are you saying being critical of the foolishness of professors at BYU is forbidden?

I was wondering the same thing -- this is why I began my long post with:

So now one can be "disciplined" for trashing BYU?!

[_Mister Scratch]

We're beating a dead horse here with this anonymity stance. Like it or not, most people on message boards...including yourself...use aliases. They use them for various reasons...safety being among what I would guess would be the top 3...at least for women.

What's interesting is that most of the "apologists" have no compunction about using their real names. My name is McClellan. My username is how I used to tell people to spell my name so they could pronounce it during my mission in Uruguay. maklelan is easier than my real last name for people to recognize, and I never have to worry about anyone already having the same name anywhere I register. Sometimes I'll sign my posts -Dan. Daniel Peterson, David Bokovoy, Bill Hamblin, myself and several other pro-Mormon posters don't seem to care.

Yep. And what's further interesting is that all of the people you named never have anything even remotely critical to say about the Church. They march more or less in lockstep.

[_maklelan]

Yep. And what's further interesting is that all of the people you named never have anything even remotely critical to say about the Church. They march more or less in lockstep.

And you interpret this to mean what? I interpet it to mean that we all aspire to the same ideals, which we all believe are divinely inspired. You appear to be insinuating that we have criticisms we would like to make, but, for whatever reason, are afraid to make them. Is that accurate? I know that I have prayed and received confirmation about every aspect of the church to which I faithfully adhere, including my mission call, my callings since then, my bishopric changes, my wife, and the decisions we make as a family. Are you saying that I'm lying, that I'm among a minority, or is it something else?

[_rcrocket]

Yep. And what's further interesting is that all of the people you named never have anything even remotely critical to say about the Church. They march more or less in lockstep.

And you interpret this to mean what? I interpet it to mean that we all aspire to the same ideals, which we all believe are divinely inspired. You appear to be insinuating that we have criticisms we would like to make, but, for whatever reason, are afraid to make them. Is that accurate? I know that I have prayed and received confirmation about every aspect of the church to which I faithfully adhere, including my mission call, my callings since then, my bishopric changes, my wife, and the decisions we make as a family. Are you saying that I'm lying, that I'm among a minority, or is it something else?

It does nobody any good exposing your personal life and experiences with the Church here. You'll just be mocked at every turn. I once remarked that a bishop, now an apostle, saved my family's life when my father died. I was mocked and challenged by several prominent posters on this Board.

P

[_Runtu]

It does nobody any good exposing your personal life and experiences with the Church here. You'll just be mocked at every turn. I once remarked that a bishop, now an apostle, saved my family's life when my father died. I was mocked and challenged by several prominent posters on this Board.

P

I agree with you, Plutarch. I have received the same treatment when I was on either side of the argument. There are some vicious critics and vicious members. It's best to keep the personal private.

John

[_rcrocket]

The internet does not give those people a license to pretend to be one thing and say another.

I certainly haven't done this, nor do I think others have whom you attack.

Are you kidding. This is the most common argument made in support of anonymous posting; that is, that is the way it is done.

I am a veteran of internet lists; I used to debate James White in 1990 on echoed BBS lists. I have posted on Prodigy and Compuserve forums, then the internet. In the earliest days, anonymous posts were an extraordinary rarity. But, now they are commonplace; the overwhelming majority of posters are anonymous. And that is the justification I see most often when I challenge it here; it is the way it is done. Well, it doesn't make it right; nearly every quality newspaper in America refuses to publish anonymous letters to the editor.

P