Elder Cook Discourages Online Anonymity

[smac97]

From the Tribune:

LDS apostle speaks out against online anonymity, calls it spiritually dangerous

A Grok summary:

Quote

In a worldwide devotional streamed from BYU-Hawaii, Apostle Quentin L. Cook warned young adult Latter-day Saints that remaining anonymous online can be spiritually dangerous and lead to “terrible consequences.” He said that if members are to be a light, they should never seek to diminish the light of another. “Hiding in the darkness of anonymity to say unkind or cruel things about another individual is incompatible with being a light. It is the opposite of letting your light shine. It is in a sense hiding your light.”

Cook urged members to be a “light on the hill and an example of a committed disciple of Jesus Christ” especially in “toxic” times, and not to hide their identity or remain “in camouflage.” He recounted asking a Jewish friend how to avoid repeating the atrocities of the Holocaust; the friend emphasized the importance of not hiding one’s identity and referenced the masked Ku Klux Klan’s violence against Jews, Blacks, Catholics, and immigrants. Cook also noted that members of a mob painted their faces to hide their identities when they tarred and feathered Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon.

He cautioned that putting on a “mask of anonymity” is one of the adversary’s tools and a serious sign of danger that can lead to bad choices. He encouraged members to avoid both online and in-person anonymity and to be peacemakers.

The article places Cook’s remarks in the context of repeated Church counsel on civility. It quotes then-President Russell M. Nelson’s 2023 General Conference warning against vulgarity, faultfinding, and “evil speaking of others,” and notes that the Church’s General Handbook condemns “threatening, bullying, degrading, violent, or otherwise abusive language or images online.”

Reactions include content creator David Snell, who said the message is a good reminder for online creators and that masking oneself to escape the consequences of un-Christlike behavior is incompatible with being a light (while acknowledging that some value privacy for personal or family reasons). Others noted vitriol from self-described active members on ex-Mormon Facebook pages and anonymous posts on platforms such as CougarBoard.

I have been trying to improve my online communications, with results that at times are leaving something to be desired.  I continue to work on it, though.

What are your thoughts about the nexus between online civility and online anonymity?  

What are your thoughts about what has been called the "Online Disinhibition Effect"?  From Wikipedia:

Quote

The online disinhibition effect refers to the lack of self-control one feels when communicating online relative to communicating offline.^[1] Individuals often perceive heightened safety when communicating online, as they can remain completely anonymous on specific websites. This anonymity diminishes concerns about potential repercussions, such as physical harm or other punitive measures.^[2] Apart from anonymity, other factors such as asynchronous communication, empathy deficit, or individual personality and cultural factors also contribute to online disinhibition.^[3][4] The manifestations of such an effect could be in both positive and negative directions; thus, online disinhibition could be classified as either benign disinhibition or toxic disinhibition.^[1]
...
Another type of online disinhibition is called "toxic disinhibition," which represents an increased tendency towards online flaming and inappropriate behaviors. These often contain hostile language, swearing, and even threats.^[1] This norm describes the negative side effect of the loss of inhibition on the cyberspace. The antisocial behaviors caused by toxic disinhibition not only occur in multiple online platforms like social media, blogs, forums, and comment sections, but also exist in diverse forms, which include cyberbullying, social loafing and more.^[2]
...

Influencing factors

Anonymity, asynchronous communication, and empathy deficit contribute to online disinhibition.^[3] Furthermore, the psychological state of deindividuation—a decreased self-awareness and self-evaluation in digital platforms—strongly amplifies these factors.^[9]

Anonymity can make a person feel safe online, like a different person; one might even take on a new persona. It has been highlighted as a strong antecedent for the negative aspects of deindividuation, as it results in a reduction of normal inner restraints.^[10] When an individual's identity is hidden behind anonymous profiles or avatars, they feel much less accountable for their behavior. For example, platforms like Reddit allow users to interact under pseudonyms, increasing the likelihood of expressing extreme opinions. Research has shown anonymous users have a greater tendency to send hostile messages in chat rooms.^[11] However, anonymity does not solely lead to negative aspects; it can also reduce the fear of judgment, encouraging prosocial behavior, cooperation, and the sharing of sensitive personal experiences for emotional support.^[12]

Asynchronous communication and a lack of immediate consequences also drive disinhibition. Asynchronous communication is not happening live, meaning one can send a message and log out without getting an immediate reply.^[3] This delay between behavior and consequence facilitates impulsive actions. For example, on gaming consoles like Xbox, reports of abuse or cheating cannot be dealt with without delay, meaning individuals do not face immediate repercussions like direct face-to-face confrontation.

Empathy deficit and reduced social cues occur because mediated communication lacks non-verbal feedback like tone, facial expressions, or body language.^[13] Studies show that social cues help reduce the ambiguity of person impressions.^[14] Without them, individuals are less certain of how their actions affect others, making it harder to empathize and increasing the likelihood of dehumanizing targets.

Group dynamics and size further intensify the disinhibition effect. Deindividuation theory suggests that larger online groups (like forums or gaming communities) increase anonymity and provide a sense of belonging.^[15] This can lead individuals to lose their unique identity and adopt the group's social norms, even if they promote aggressive behavior.^[16] Large interactions can also result in group polarization, where individuals escalate their behaviors to align with extreme group norms, which is particularly prevalent in online political forums.

"Anonymity, asynchronous communication, and empathy deficit contribute to online disinhibition."  Do you agree or disagree?  Are there other contributing factors?

Do you think Elder Cook as a good point?

Do you think adverse effects of anonymity are present on this board?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Pyreaux]

Wise. Dispite the unfortunate stories where people regret past remarks they said when they were younger. I'm certain anonymity is going to disappear before too long, AI will triangulate everyone. People are already getting arrested for things they say online in the UK. The thought police will have the ability to enforce their will.

[Chum]

Anonymity is critical for self-protection, particularly from those with more power. When I ran a game server, I mandated anonymity and continually reminded my young players to keep their personal details quiet. Anonymity keeps them safe from those who are more powerful than them.

I looked for any quote at all by Elder Cook where he speaks against misuse of power.  He's given a few glancing comments about unrighteous dominion but they were ancillary. If powerful people harming the weak ever made him uncomfortable enough to build a talk around it, I can find no sign of it. 

Elder Cook's most prominent concern for abuse of power seems to begin and end with people protecting themselves from it.  Well, okay.

Perhaps he lost his way. Perhaps he never had it.  I might agree that neither of those things are absolutely true. But I suspect if I view him thru a lens of someone who safeguards power, I won't be surprised. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

Anonymity is critical for self-protection, particularly from those with more power. When I ran a game server, I mandated anonymity and continually reminded my young players to keep their personal details quiet. Anonymity keeps them safe from those who are more powerful than them.I looked for any quote at all by Elder Cook where he speaks against misuse of power.  He's given a few glancing comments about unrighteous dominion but they were ancillary. If powerful people harming the weak ever made him uncomfortable enough to build a talk around it, I can find no sign of it. 
 

My first response was thinking he is not female.  Probably never homeless, etc.  I wondered if he considered the other side of life and figured it wasn’t likely to be relevant to his audience, who demographically are more likely well off I believe.

I do think avoiding anonymity would be best if one could trust those in power, but I prefer the teaching of acting morally no matter if someone knows who you are or not.  I get that we are more likely to be civil if we know we can get in trouble if we are not, but if that’s the reason we allow ourselves to cross lines, we are in need of moral and emotional maturity.

Quote

He recounted asking a Jewish friend how to avoid repeating the atrocities of the Holocaust; the friend emphasized the importance of not hiding one’s identity and referenced the masked Ku Klux Klan’s violence against Jews, Blacks, Catholics, and immigrants. Cook also noted that members of a mob painted their faces to hide their identities when they tarred and feathered Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon.

What if the Ku Klux Khan are the ones in power with access to one’s personal info?  I worry about minorities—which LDS members are in most places—and any others not particularly welcomed in China and Russia.  Not happy with some stuff going on in the US right now as well.

In Canada, my husband had a couple of students had changed their names, the ultimate anonymity, so they can join the Church….with the approval of the First Presidency.

Quote

Elder Cook's most prominent concern for abuse of power seems to begin and end with people protecting themselves from it.  Well, okay.

We are much more likely to be able to change our own behaviour rather than others.  Perhaps that is why he focused on the individual a the potential abuser rather than then a potential victim.

Edited Tuesday at 03:40 AM by Calm

[Rain]

When I stop seeing people misunderstanding something someone said or did, and mobs attack them because of that misunderstanding and ruin their lives, maybe I will worry less about people knowing who I am.  When I can be in another country and ask about where I can find such and such or how to do ____ without worrying that someone will rob my house while I'm gone then I'll think about not being anonymous.  When I don't have to worry about what people will do to my loved ones or me because I advocate for refugees and other immigrants, then I will consider not being anonymous.  

I read through the transcript on YouTube, and it seems to me that he is less worried about actually being anonymous and more worried about how being anonymous may tempt you to be unkind and cruel.  I try to be the same person I am online as I am offline.  I try to be kind. I try to love friend and foe.  I try to be empathetic.  I understand that isn't the case for everyone. 

Until I feel safer communicating online, I'm always going to take some measures of anonymity. I'm aware that people will be able to figure out who I am anyway, but I hope that the measures I take can reduce how many people try.

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

He cautioned that putting on a “mask of anonymity” is one of the adversary’s tools and a serious sign of danger that can lead to bad choices. He encouraged members to avoid both online and in-person anonymity and to be peacemakers.

So… ICE?

[Tony uk]

9 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Wise. Dispite the unfortunate stories where people regret past remarks they said when they were younger. I'm certain anonymity is going to disappear before too long, AI will triangulate everyone. People are already getting arrested for things they say online in the UK. The thought police will have the ability to enforce their will.

Like, I presume, many people, have regretted things that I have said, and also done, while younger. However, with age, comes a better understanding and knowledge.  The things that I have said and done while younger, I try and turn from a regret, into a lesson learned.

Edited Tuesday at 11:36 AM by Tony uk
Grammar

[MustardSeed]

Advice to be kinder?  Absolutely necessary.  More christlike behavior is a crucial necessary daily pursuit of which most of us fall short. 
 

Anonymity has simply allowed the deeper flawed self to be exposed.  We should probably look deeper.   

Edited Tuesday at 11:00 AM by MustardSeed

[The Nehor]

Foolish counsel to be honest.

I am really confused on how getting rid of anonymity is supposed to avoid a holocaust. The SS weren’t going around masked. The danger of the KKK wasn’t their anonymity. That was just plausible deniability. Everyone knew who the Klan were and they were the respectable and upstanding citizens and their lackeys enforcing white supremacy through violence or the threat of violence.

The value of anonymity is very valuable to those who are speaking against or fighting against structures of power. The KKK is the powerful wielding anonymity against the marginalized. Demanding a lack of anonymity is very dangerous to those who are already marginalized. A young newly out queer teen who fears their parents might harm them if found out should just “let their light shine” so they can get beaten or be rendered homeless? Should those fighting a fascist regime “let their light shine”? A victim of a sex crime perpetuated by someone in power seeking help should put their name on it so they get a bullseye?

This is stupid. It is the rhetoric of authoritarian bootlickers. I don’t think that describes Elder Cook though. I think Elder Cook is just naive and read some stories about anonymity on the internet and made a snap judgment on it. When you have never been marginalized or been in danger this kind of saccharine stuff about being open probably sounds like virtue.

Also quick reminder that Joseph Smith and other early church leaders used code names in the early revelations and in many communications for their own safety. Jesus went around telling people not to say who he was or that he had healed someone. Many prophets had to go into hiding for their own safety. Abinadi had to use a disguise to get into a position to preach. Were those all a tool of the adversary? Or does this only apply to the internet?

[Doctor Steuss]

I'm going out on a limb that my experience of getting a message online detailing my address, my son's name and school, my immediate family members and their addresses, was a bit different than had I been a high-ranking official in an organization with a dedicated law firm and professional permanent security staff.  I'll stick with valuing anonymity.

[MustardSeed]

I understand his intent.  General authorities have been pressing us to pay attention to how we behave online for quite some time and it’s not working.  Certainly if we were representing ourselves with our real names, we would interact much differently online in lots of ways.  
if we have the capacity to behave more maturely and stoop less to personal attacks and criticism and judgment, anonymity becomes a non-issue.  It’s not about the name we use. But if using a fake name gives us permission in our minds to behave badly then that’s something to look at and change the behavior.

[MustardSeed]

On 11/2/2026 at 5:37 PM, smac97 said:

Do you think Elder Cook as a good point?

Do you think adverse effects of anonymity are present on this board?

I’m interested in knowing your own answers to your own post. 
 

 

[Chum]

On 11/2/2026 at 7:34 PM, MiserereNobis said:

So… ICE?

You are my favorite person today.

[Chum]

6 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

General authorities have been pressing us to pay attention to how we behave online for quite some time and it’s not working.

It's not working when GA skip right past the firehoses of lie-based messaging that is directly driving animosity. Elder Cook blasts past the ongoing reality that powerful interests harm continually harm and exploit weaker people. 

After giving widespread harm-making a pass, he attacks one of the last remaining methods people have to safeguard themselves. 

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I understand his intent.  General authorities have been pressing us to pay attention to how we behave online for quite some time and it’s not working.  Certainly if we were representing ourselves with our real names, we would interact much differently online in lots of ways.  
if we have the capacity to behave more maturely and stoop less to personal attacks and criticism and judgment, anonymity becomes a non-issue.  It’s not about the name we use. But if using a fake name gives us permission in our minds to behave badly then that’s something to look at and change the behavior.

I don’t think this counsel would improve anyone. It is the old “there are rats in the basement but they hide when the lights come on so if we leave the light on all the time then the rat problem is solved” thing. If we behave badly when we think there is no way for it to be traced back to us then online civility is the least of our problems. I don’t know how to cleanse the inner vessel but this solution is just a thin coat of whitewash hiding negative emotions and resentments.

I see why an apostle would want it to stop. It is bad PR for the church if members are jackasses online but this is hacking at the leaves of the problem and leaving the branches and the roots.

[The Nehor]

On 11/2/2026 at 9:34 PM, MiserereNobis said:

So… ICE?

I agree and state that if you are a government actor and need anonymity when carrying out violent government actions outside of a literal war zone then 99.9% of the time something has gone horribly wrong.

“Hans…..are we the baddies?” levels of wrong.

 

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, Doctor Steuss said:

I'm going out on a limb that my experience of getting a message online detailing my address, my son's name and school, my immediate family members and their addresses, was a bit different than had I been a high-ranking official in an organization with a dedicated law firm and professional permanent security staff.  I'll stick with valuing anonymity.

Had a similar experience and same.

[3DOP]

On 11/2/2026 at 9:34 PM, MiserereNobis said:

So… ICE?

Miserere. What does your reply mean? Can you explain its popularity to me? I am truly ignorant. Heh.

You know. I don't get jokes. I get some. But often not. Was this a joke?

[3DOP]

14 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Miserere. What does your reply mean? Can you explain its popularity to me? I am truly ignorant. Heh.

You know. I don't get jokes. I get some. But often not. Was this a joke?

When I said "You know." I didn't mean what the words say. There are expressions which are understood not necessarily according to the literal meaning. What I meant more literally was, "Hey y'know how some people seem to be slow at getting punchlines?"

Words are hard. But its all we have to try to communicate. What do you think about the Word became flesh? I almost certainly miss a lot of the implications of that too. Anyway, ICE is probably easier. Let's try to understand that first.

[Calm]

I read it as ICE is a prime example of masking/anonymity leading to incivility, abuse:

https://www.cato.org/blog/ice-agents-seizing-people-now-routinely-wear-masks-thats-wrong

My guess is Elder Cook wasn’t thinking of the government in his talk.  Would like it if he was though.  

Edited 1 hour ago by Calm