The Anonymity Issue

[_Kishkumen]

The irony in this is Mr. Bob understands just how much of a gambit it is to use one's in real life on message boards. You'd think he'd become an advocate of anonymity after becoming a victim of his own policy.

- VRDRC

I think, if I understand correctly, that what is intended in Yahoo Bot's transparency ethic is for every doubter and critic of the current LDS regime to step out of the darkness and into the light of Church discipline.

It is the old "love it or leave it" approach to community.

Or, even, the old "fall in line or get booted out" approach.

[_Samantabhadra]

My reason for staying anonymous is probably a little bit different from others.

Unlike most of the posters on this board, I believe (know) that magick is real. The historical record doesn't seem to offer a definitive judgment on just how effective young Joseph Smith was as a village sorceror, but the Masonic rituals that he learned and taught to his flock were genuine as far as Masonic rituals go, and I know Masons that have demonstrated the efficacy of those rituals to me. So I have no doubt that, at least in theory, the Melchizedek priesthood is capable of directing magickal energies at their enemies, defined as those (like myself) who would expose LDS for the fraud-peddling occultic pyramid scheme that it is.

I don't fear Mormon magick--my protection is orders of magnitude more powerful than anything they could ever throw at me--but, when it comes to sorcery, a little bit of caution goes a long way, and anonymity is a very effective first line of defense.

[_angsty]

It wouldn't take much sleuthing to figure out who I am in real life, but Mormonism and Mormon issues are kind of a guilty pleasure for me so I'd rather not associate my name with them. When I need a break from thinking about things that are truly important to me, I turn to the cotton-candy, National Enquirer-esque world of keeping up with Mormon apologia. I don't want people reading my other work to associate me with Mormonism any more than I'd want people to think I read the Weekly World News, or run a fan page dedicated to the Osmonds (I don't, by the way, I do have some dignity).

[_Yahoo Bot]

I think, if I understand correctly, that what is intended in Yahoo Bot's transparency ethic is for every doubter and critic of the current LDS regime to step out of the darkness and into the light of Church discipline.

It is the old "love it or leave it" approach to community.

Or, even, the old "fall in line or get booted out" approach.

That isn't really my view. My reading of the New Testament tells me, and you can disagree perhaps, that Jesus decried hypocrisy as much as anything else. The Pharisees pretended to be one thing when they were really sinners. We all are sinners, Jesus taught, and we should love the sinners, Jesus taught, but to pretend not to be a sinner when one was really a sinner was something He thought was abominable. Jesus taught more about hypocrisy than morality, truth-telling and murder.

I think one should act consistently with one's belief and practices in all regard.

I don't think that one should preach the gospel as a Latter-day Saint as an anonymous poster. I think the posters on the other board who are anonymous who defend the Church will have to stand to account some day for their lack of courage.

I invite all to come within the embrace of the Gospel, but the Church isn't for everybody. If you're unhappy, then (1) go inactive, or (2) resign. Then, be happy and make the most of your life. But to experience the dissonance of trying to be a church-goer on the one hand and be an anonymous critic on the other hand is something that, to me, Jesus would condemn.

So, if you're anonymous and outta the church and posting anonymously, well, then you're just without courage. If you're anonymous and a bishop or high councilor and posting anonymously against the Brethren and the church, well, then I see a pretty significant moral failure.

In Wang Chung's case, it seems to me that Jesus would be happier with him if he acted consistently with his personal beliefs, be in sitting in the congregation as an agnostic or on the stand.

[_MrStakhanovite]

My reason for staying anonymous is probably a little bit different from others.

Unlike most of the posters on this board, I believe (know) that magick is real. The historical record doesn't seem to offer a definitive judgment on just how effective young Joseph Smith was as a village sorceror, but the Masonic rituals that he learned and taught to his flock were genuine as far as Masonic rituals go, and I know Masons that have demonstrated the efficacy of those rituals to me. So I have no doubt that, at least in theory, the Melchizedek priesthood is capable of directing magickal energies at their enemies, defined as those (like myself) who would expose LDS for the fraud-peddling occultic pyramid scheme that it is.

I don't fear Mormon magick--my protection is orders of magnitude more powerful than anything they could ever throw at me--but, when it comes to sorcery, a little bit of caution goes a long way, and anonymity is a very effective first line of defense.

I find this terribly compelling for some reason…

If I recall correctly, you self identify as a Christian but have in-depth knowledge of Eastern Religions, yes?

[_harmony]

That isn't really my view. My reading of the New Testament tells me, and you can disagree perhaps, that Jesus decried hypocrisy as much as anything else. The Pharisees pretended to be one thing when they were really sinners. We all are sinners, Jesus taught, and we should love the sinners, Jesus taught, but to pretend not to be a sinner when one was really a sinner was something He thought was abominable. Jesus taught more about hypocrisy than morality, truth-telling and murder.

Stewardship. And you have none.

I think one should act consistently with one's belief and practices in all regard.

You have no stewardship over anyone here, thus you have no voice over anyone here. What you think is only as important as the least of those among us.

I don't think that one should preach the gospel as a Latter-day Saint as an anonymous poster. I think the posters on the other board who are anonymous who defend the Church will have to stand to account some day for their lack of courage.

And when this idea is given from the general conference pulpit, then it may have weight. Until then (and that will likely be a long long time), see above.

I invite all to come within the embrace of the Gospel,...

That would be the Gospel According to Yahoo Bot, which is as true and correct as the Gospel According to Any Anonymous Poster on this or any other Board.

You have no stewardship here, Bot. You overstep into unrighteous dominion when you assume stewardship you don't have.

but the Church isn't for everybody.

No authority to say this, either. Good grief.

If you're unhappy, then (1) go inactive, or (2) resign.

No authority. Giving advice requires authority and stewardship, Bot... you have none.

Then, be happy and make the most of your life. But to experience the dissonance of trying to be a church-goer on the one hand and be an anonymous critic on the other hand is something that, to me, Jesus would condemn.

You are not an authority on what Jesus would condemn. You never were, and I'm not seeing this in your future.

And if you knew anything about psychology, you'd know you aren't qualified to give advice regarding dissonance either.

Stick to legal advice.

So, if you're anonymous and outta the church and posting anonymously, well, then you're just without courage. If you're anonymous and a bishop or high councilor and posting anonymously against the Brethren and the church, well, then I see a pretty significant moral failure.

Well, since no one died and made you the authority on individual moral failure, I think we're all pretty safe here.

In Wang Chung's case, it seems to me that Jesus would be happier with him if he acted consistently with his personal beliefs, be in sitting in the congregation as an agnostic or on the stand.

His ward is lucky to have him. God bless him.

[_Morley]

In Wang Chung's case, it seems to me that Jesus would be happier with him if he acted consistently with his personal beliefs, be in sitting in the congregation as an agnostic or on the stand.

His ward is lucky to have him. God bless him.

Worth repeating.

[_Eric]

One Sunday night not too long ago I finally had the chance to take a peak inside the Bishop's folder that held some of my Church records. In it were several printed email messages from Mormon apologists who post on this message board.

Several years ago this crazy Mormon named Bob Crockett started extorting me via private messages, threatening to expose my "apostasy" to my family while my little sister layed in a hospital recovering from an illness that almost took her life.

Around the same time, a very large professor at BYU took a break from touring Southern California with LDS professional fund raiser Ed Snow and soliciting donations from my step-dad to follow through on Crazy Crocket's threats.

I strongly recommend maintaining anonymity to protect yourself from these two "saints" alone, not to mention the other crazies that might be lurking.

[_Jason Bourne]

I think many have explained why remaining anonymous is prudent. Look at what has happened to the man Yahoo Bot who is so proud of being brave and not cowardly. His strident posting under his in real life name has caused him numerous problems and his family has even been dragged into things. If he thinks that it is so wonderfully brave and righteous to post under his real name good for him. I think he is foolish.

That said I have considered to start posting under my real name. I am really not afraid too. But then I see what has happened to the champion of this prudence holds me back.

Is it cowardly? I don't think so at all. I think this is Bots way to bully people and he does bully people on this.

So while I have some very close to revealing my name here certain things always hold me back.

[_Samantabhadra]

If I recall correctly, you self identify as a Christian but have in-depth knowledge of Eastern Religions, yes?

I was baptized Eastern Orthodox, raised Catholic, and maintain communion with Apostolic Christianity, primarily through my relationship with the Eastern Orthodox. That's mostly because I take the idea of the metaphysical changes of Baptism seriously, and I take the fact that I was reborn as a Christian as being important. But my own personal practice is primarily Buddhist, as I spent almost a decade studying both philosophy and ritual practice in Nepal.

If I had a gun to my head, I would probably identify as Buddhist. However I believe that Jesus attained Rainbow Body after learning advanced practices from his travels to Kashmir, and as such I don't really consider Apostolic Christianity and tantric Buddhism to be two different religions. From my perspective, it's all about "samaya," the commitment and relationship that connects spiritual father to spiritual disciple. Oriental and Eastern Orthodox, as well as Catholics and a handfull of other Churches, have maintained samaya over the centuries, and thus have unimpeded access to the original stream of blessings going all the way back to Jesus Himself.