The evils of Anonymity vs the Benefits (especially for bob)

[_rcrocket]

In a perfect world, I'd agree with crock.

In a perfect world there would never be a need for anonymity. But even amoung good people, anonymity is very useful. If, for example, a woman really wants to know if her pants make her butt look big, she should get anonymous feedback--otherwise the wise amoung us will simply refuse to answer that question.

I agree. A mask helps a bank robber.

I think the point of my analogy is that it is better not to libel someone at all than libel someone anonymously. The internet is only a medium; it is not a justification for boorish and cowardly behavior.

rcrocket

[_Mister Scratch]

In a perfect world, I'd agree with crock.

In a perfect world there would never be a need for anonymity. But even amoung good people, anonymity is very useful. If, for example, a woman really wants to know if her pants make her butt look big, she should get anonymous feedback--otherwise the wise amoung us will simply refuse to answer that question.

I agree. A mask helps a bank robber.

I think the point of my analogy is that it is better not to libel someone at all than libel someone anonymously. The internet is only a medium; it is not a justification for boorish and cowardly behavior.

rcrocket

Yes, sort of how like wanting to defend the Church is not an excuse for dishonest and unscrupulous scholarship.

(Here: let me start my timer to see how long it takes before you go into denial mode, Bob....)

[_rcrocket]

In a perfect world, I'd agree with crock. But since I live in utah, and would be subject to judgements by other Mormons I work/live/interact with, I'm anonymous.

Sorry crock - that's the way it is. Prospective employers do google searches to look up potential new hires. I wouldn't want some TBM denying me a job just because I don't agree with his religion. I wouldn't want some neighbor not let their kids hang out with my kids just because I don't agree with their religion. I don't want some TBM harrassing me for being an exmo.

The world ain't perfect, and the members of the church certainly ain't perfect. Therefore, I'm anonymous.

But, don't you see the wrongness of your position? You appear, unlike many on this Board, to be able to entertain and process rational argument.

You have chosen to make anonymous public criticisms, although generally rather mild in your case, of a faith to which many adhere and love. You know, deep down, that such postings could jeopardize your membership in the church. Rather than choose the wise and honorable course, and directing your criticisms vertically -- up the priesthood channel and demanding satisfaction -- you have done it horizontally.

This is no real difference than working for General Electric as a manager, and having a beef with management. Rather than voicing your criticisms directly with your boss in a courageous way, you go onto the internet and say mean-spirited things that can hurt living persons and destroy the morale of others.

I simply cannot fathom going onto a public board and criticizing the firm of which I am a partner, anonymously.

Horizontal anonymous criticism is no substitute for courage.

rcrocket

[_rcrocket]

Yes, sort of how like wanting to defend the Church is not an excuse for dishonest and unscrupulous scholarship.

(Here: let me start my timer to see how long it takes before you go into denial mode, Bob....)

Well, click your stopwatch. I have no clue what you're talking about, so there is my denial.

Have you read my published MMM pieces? What think ye of them?

rcrocket

[_asbestosman]

In a perfect world, I'd agree with crock.

In a perfect world there would never be a need for anonymity. But even amoung good people, anonymity is very useful. If, for example, a woman really wants to know if her pants make her butt look big, she should get anonymous feedback--otherwise the wise amoung us will simply refuse to answer that question.

I agree. A mask helps a bank robber.

Non-sequitor, but alright yes, I agree that a mask helps a bank robber. It also helps when rules of politenes inhibit one from delivering constructive criticism. That's what the fat pants example was about. It demonstrates that anonymity can be useful for good people--people who aren't robbing banks.

Automobiles are useful for bank robbers too.

I think the point of my analogy is that it is better not to libel someone at all than libel someone anonymously. The internet is only a medium; it is not a justification for boorish and cowardly behavior.

And I absolutely agree with you there. If that's that's the case though, don't you think that issue of anonymity is a red-herring? The real issue is libel or rudeness. To use another absurd stretch, an anonymous whistle-blower (again, I don't think that's was Mormon critics are) is not necessarily a coward. Rather he has the courage to do the right thing while alse having the wisdom not to put himself in danger.

[_Mister Scratch]

Yes, sort of how like wanting to defend the Church is not an excuse for dishonest and unscrupulous scholarship.

(Here: let me start my timer to see how long it takes before you go into denial mode, Bob....)

Well, click your stopwatch. I have no clue what you're talking about, so there is my denial.

Have you read my published MMM pieces? What think ye of them?

rcrocket

Distorted and dishonest. That's what I think. Better fess up now, or I'll have to tell the newbies about it! Gee, imagine it: a bishop engaging in this kind of low-ball behavior! Wow! And then, he's got the gall to go online and lecture others about how "unscrupulous" they are! How about that!

[_asbestosman]

This is no real difference than working for General Electric as a manager, and having a beef with management. Rather than voicing your criticisms directly with your boss in a courageous way, you go onto the internet and say mean-spirited things that can hurt living persons and destroy the morale of others.

I think I do see a point there too, but again, the anonymity seems to be irrelavent. I wouldn't feel any better if someone said mean-spirited things that can hurt living persons under his own name.

I simply cannot fathom going onto a public board and criticizing the firm of which I am a partner, anonymously.

But aren't things different if you're a former partner?

Absurd example: What if you were a former Klansman, but you resort to anonymous criticism of it becuase you don't want either your former association with the Klan nor your current hatred of it to interfere with your job prospects?

[_AmazingDisgrace]

You have chosen to make anonymous public criticisms, although generally rather mild in your case, of a faith to which many adhere and love. You know, deep down, that such postings could jeopardize your membership in the church. Rather than choose the wise and honorable course, and directing your criticisms vertically -- up the priesthood channel and demanding satisfaction -- you have done it horizontally.

This is no real difference than working for General Electric as a manager, and having a beef with management. Rather than voicing your criticisms directly with your boss in a courageous way, you go onto the internet and say mean-spirited things that can hurt living persons and destroy the morale of others.

I simply cannot fathom going onto a public board and criticizing the firm of which I am a partner, anonymously.

Horizontal anonymous criticism is no substitute for courage.

And how, exactly does vertical criticism work in the LDS church? Let's ask Elder Packer.

Thirty-eight years ago I came from Brigham City to the office I now occupy in the Administration Building to see Elder Harold B. Lee, who, next to President Joseph Fielding Smith, was the senior member of the Quorum of the Twelve. I had just been appointed the supervisor of Seminaries and Institutes of Religion. I knew there were serious problems in the system and I wondered why they had not appointed someone with more experience.

Elder Lee had agreed to give me counsel and some direction. He didn't say much, nothing really in detail, but what he told me has saved me time and time again. "You must decide now which way you face," he said. "Either you represent the teachers and students and champion their causes or you represent the Brethren who appointed you. You need to decide now which way you face." then he added, "some of your predecessors faced the wrong way." It took some hard and painful lessons before I understood his counsel. In time, I did understand, and my resolve to face the right way became irreversible.

One of the early lessons was also my first lesson in correlation. The seminaries were sponsoring speech contests., They were very successful -- much better than similar contests sponsored by the Mutual Improvement Association. It was an ideal gospel-centered activity for seminaries. They were succeeding beautifully under able teachers who could assist even the shy students. We were instructed to discontinue them!

There was something of an uprising among the teachers. They accused Superintendent Curtis of the Young Men and President Reeder of the Young Women of being responsible. Perhaps they were. The teachers wanted Brother Tuttle and me to plead their cause before the Brethren. The logic was all on our side. Nevertheless we remembered the counsel of Brother Lee, and really, just out of obedience, we declined.

Talk to the All-Church Coordinating Council
Boyd K. Packer
May 18, 1993

So, yes, there is vertical criticism. In exactly one direction. Are you seriously suggesting that members who have concluded that some of the church's claims are not true should go to their bishops and say, "I've got a suggestion. How about we back off on the whole 'The Book of Mormon is an ancient record' thing. Would you mind passing that on up the chain to the Stake President for me?"

[_evolving]

"I've got a suggestion. How about we back off on the whole 'The Book of Mormon is an ancient record' thing. Would you mind passing that on up the chain to the Stake President for me?"

Sorry, I brought up that exact suggestion twice with the Stake President. the results were a welcome to the bishops office for a "how's your testimony" meeting.

[_Zoidberg]

If you see nothing wrong with hurling anonymous and public insults at a living and identified person, then why don't we leave it at that and move on?

I'm sorry, but what are you referring to here? When have I ever said it's okay to hurl insults at a living and identified person, and what person was it?

It's another thing that perfectly benign posts might be taken as insults by someone in the audience. Admitting that had earned me nothing but ridicule from juliann and the mods at MAD.

Incidentally, I try not to take things personally unless I know they were intended to be insults. So I really don't mind you calling me dishonest or immoral if you are not meaning to insult me; you are just not correct and the reasoning that made you arrive at that conclusion is flawed, so I took the liberty to point that out.