Yahoo Bot wrote: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...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.
I get the idea that there is an element of hypocrisy in not acting consistently with one's personal beliefs. A person who is trying to reconcile a deteriorating relationship with the LDS Church (and/or family, friends, business associates, etc.) by outwardly acting as a believer, but who inwardly does not actually believe, has to deal with the psychological consequences of that hypocrisy. It's a common personal struggle that people talk about all the time. But Jesus would be an idiot to not recognize that there are more factors at play, influencing the non-believer to make his/her choices, than an abstract "moral failure." Your analysis suffers from
fundamental attribution error.
Mormons believe that Jesus is smart enough to get that whole concept. In fact, to account for possible bias, he has even experienced the psychological consequences of hypocrisy (somehow, through his Atonement). That's why Mormons take seriously Jesus' admonition to "Judge not." They aren't in a position to make that call -- only he is. Why do you spend time on the internet doing something only Christ is able and authorized to do?
Yahoo Bot wrote:So, if you're anonymous and outta the church and posting anonymously, well, then you're just without courage.
Courage isn't always virtuous, lovely, or of good report, or praiseworthy. Particularly when anonymity is necessary to protect your loved ones, livelihood, or life.
Joseph Smith took advantage of anonymity, supposedly to avoid legal liability, not just harassment. How do you judge Joseph Smith on that point?
-JV