The Anonymity Issue

[_Yahoo Bot]

Bob's stalking, lying, and overall crazy behavior was documented in an epic thread titled "What About Bob" but, unfortunately, Bob threatened the board and Dr. Shades with a lawsuit if it wasn't deleted.

Bob should get banned for this, ergo the new rules.

It would probably be a good thing for you all if I were. After all, I've been suspended for a week. I'm waiting for the next shoe to drop.

[_Yahoo Bot]

I thought I was your former friend. What an emotional roller coaster a relationship with you is!

I only wish the best for you. If you've been wronged then the wrongdoer should pay. At this point it is all water under the bridge with you and me; I have no interested in pissing off your family. But you are free to carry on against me. The remaining issue I have with you is that it doesn't seem that you know all that much about LDS history and doctrine, and as I come here to talk about that (often unsuccessfully, as this thread shows) to learn new angles or findings, talking with you just isn't going to yield much because that is not what you are about.

[_Juggler Vain]

If he had the threatening PM posts he claims to have, he'd post them.

That's against the rules here, Bot, as you well know.

Here is the rule:

Do not make mention of anything that allegedly transpired or is transpiring via the chat room or via private message that the source him- or herself has not overtly made public. People who communicate behind-the-scenes obviously intend their communications to remain behind-the-scenes. Any post on the board itself making reference to such things will be deleted.

Yahoo Bot accuses Eric of lying, denies (and invites all to read his past denials) that any such communications exist, and then to drive the point home, implies that Eric can prove he's not a liar by posting them. He has created a situation in which the only way for Eric to defend himself is to post the private message. Isn't that a clear demonstration that, contrary to a typical situation, Yahoo Bot doesn't intend for those communications to remain behind-the-scenes?

Since we are discussing the merits of anonymity in this thread, and an opponent of anonymity has called for his own purportedly on-point PM to be posted, why not make an exception to Universal Rule 3 in this case, and let Eric do it? Moderators?

Of course, if Yahoo Bot wants to (1) rescind his waiver of Universal Rule 3 and confirm that Eric should keep his non-existant private messages private, and (2) provide a way for Eric to defend himself from accusations of lying about private messages without posting those private messages, we can all get some closure, without Moderator intervention, and move on.

-JV

[_Jason Bourne]

[

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.

Considering one of Bots favorite ploys is does your SP know about what you are posting this seems risky. Would Bot send a note to someones SP who is posting here in their real name? I wonder.

[_Eric]

I thought I was your former friend. What an emotional roller coaster a relationship with you is!

I only wish the best for you. If you've been wronged then the wrongdoer should pay. At this point it is all water under the bridge with you and me; I have no interested in pissing off your family. But you are free to carry on against me. The remaining issue I have with you is that it doesn't seem that you know all that much about LDS history and doctrine, and as I come here to talk about that (often unsuccessfully, as this thread shows) to learn new angles or findings, talking with you just isn't going to yield much because that is not what you are about.

I was indoctrinated from eight years of age by a Mormon fanatic and apologist, and then by crazier Mormons while at the Boys Ranch, so I feel fairly confident in what I know about the Church. That it doesn't consume me to the point of constantly debating ink blots on old pieces of paper with strangers online does not make me any less informed, although I suspect you do know enough about LDS history to know that your religion is sham.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Of course, if Yahoo Bot wants to (1) rescind his waiver of Universal Rule 3 and confirm that Eric should keep his non-existant private messages private, and (2) provide a way for Eric to defend himself from accusations of lying about private messages without posting those private messages, we can all get some closure, without Moderator intervention, and move on.

-JV

Yet it does not strike you as odd that Eric mentioned PM content (which does not exist) in the first place, and yet this thread and he remain? Hmm. How curious, but it is fascinating.

Of course I waive all that. Every time the charge is made, I made the same rejoinder. Post them. He can't make them up. the mods have the ability to confirm whether the PMs exist or not.

But, at this point, I don't really care.

[_Yahoo Bot]

I was indoctrinated from eight years of age by a Mormon fanatic and apologist, and then by crazier Mormons while at the Boys Ranch, so I feel fairly confident in what I know about the Church. That it doesn't consume me to the point of constantly debating ink blots on old pieces of paper with strangers online does not make me any less informed, although I suspect you do know enough about LDS history to know that your religion is sham.

Debating history and doctrine with the anti-Mormons on this board does, indeed, educate me somewhat as to the nuances I might not have otherwise known, and that is the main reason I am here. Plus, not being plugged into the FARMS crowd, I pick up the latest on them here. Along the way I find myself being snarky to people like you, and for that you have my apologies. I won't ever change, but nonetheless --

And, yes, the Church is indeed true as the sky is blue, but that's the most you'll ever hear from me here about that.

[_Eric]

Along the way I find myself being snarky to people like you, and for that you have my apologies. I won't ever change, but nonetheless --

You'll just have to accept the fact that you are genuinely not a good person. I don't say that with any feeling behind it, it's an objective observation from what I know about you (and as you admit, our history goes way, way back).

I forgive you, but I'm also very sorry people like you exist in the world. I really am.

Like the great William S. Burroughs said, "No one does more harm than people who feel 'bad' about doing it."

[_Yahoo Bot]

Along the way I find myself being snarky to people like you, and for that you have my apologies. I won't ever change, but nonetheless --

You'll just have to accept the fact that you are genuinely not a good person. I don't say that with any feeling behind it, it's an objective observation from what I know about you (and as you admit, our history goes way, way back).

I forgive you, but I'm also very sorry people like you exist in the world. I really am.

Like the great William S. Burroughs said, "No one does more harm than people who feel 'bad' about doing it."

You should continue to assail me all you want. Don't change.

[_Jason Bourne]

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 have studies the New Testament quite a bit. While Jesus does decry hypocrisy I disagree he makes as much and issue out of it as you think he does.

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

Just because one post anonymously does not mean their actions are not consistent. Personally I have said here before that I have shared my view with my leaders. They choose to leave me in the calling I am in. I have shared my views with my wife, my father, my brothers, some to my adult children and a number of close LDS friends. I feel no need to do any more than that. I post continue to post anonymously for other reasons that I have stated. I think you have been foolish not too. Look at the results for you.

But there are a number hear who I trust and they know who I am.

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.

At least you are consistent.

I invite all to come within the embrace of the Gospel, but the Church isn't for everybody.

Some who post here do embrace the gospel. That they differ in what that means from you does not mean they do not embrace the gospel.

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

Personally I am quite happy. Why are you always so anxious to see people leave? Some stay for other personal reasons as well and are willing to put up with some unhappiness for more important purposes.

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 Jesus. Personally I feel quite ok with Him. I have talked to him at length about these things. He tells me he is not happy with harsh approaches to his gospel. Things like this really bother him even more than hypocrisy:

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

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.

Yes we know that. You are a one note wonder on this.

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.

I think you are wrong.