I have found in my informal research into this hobby horse that the only persons who think that posting anonymous insults and outrageous claims in support of or in the attack of religion are those who do so, and nobody else.
It would be interesting to somehow gauge the civility of all posts on this board and see if posters using their real names are better behaved than those who post under an alias.
In spite of the world's arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God's prophets.
That's not very honorable. Few would think that honorable except, I think, anonymous posters on webblogs.
If you were a Senior Vice President at Oracle and you had a problem with Oracle's corporate policies, it would not be honorable to anonymously air your concerns on a public board. It is not considered whistleblowing, and if caught you'd be fired and find it difficult to get a job in the future.
Really, now, you think it is honorable for a bishop with doubts to air his doubts anonymously on this board and claim to be a bishop? Come on. I'm surprised anybody would think that.
Regarding the example of the bishop, the anonymous one would be wishing to hide his position as well. He would be exploring his own doubts without ever wanting other LDS to know, wanting to avoid involving those in his care with his troubles.
I don't know what Oracle is. It sounds like you think I am discussing a bishop who is anonymously complaining about church policies. I agree. Not honorable
I do not understand the internet hassling thing. Maybe it happens.
I've been both anonymous and not on the internet. Many here know my real name and I don't mind. There is another site where a particular movement/school of thought is often heatedly discussed. For those who tried very hard, my name can be found on the internet with a minor role in supporting this movement in an official capacity. I occasionally want to give my opinion on matters without it appearing that I could be perceived in the role of spokesman for this group. In addition to this, I have a son who is one of a handful of candidates to become a person of public prominence and authority in this organization. in the meantime and after, I would not like for him to have to defend or apologize for things his father may have said.
The Federalist Papers are an example of a long tradition of literature in which a pseudonym is used. Certainly if people are doing it so they can be impolite and rude without being identified, it is dishonorable. We know the authors of the Federalist Papers now. Maybe they were known at the time too. I do not recall. But John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton would all fall under your censure against writing anonymously. I am satisfied that occasionally there might be a reason that we can't easily imagine for why someone uses a pseudoname. Perhaps the most common reason is just for the fun of it. I don't know. But I know I don't want my son to possibly be associated with every idea that his dad might have.
0
rcrocket, on 19 December 2011 - 05:54 PM, said:
