Internet Anti-Mormonism

[Bob Crockett]

Well, I defend the Church anonymously. Maybe someday I will work up the courage to defend it using my real name.

And I think you're wrong to post anonymously, but I offer that criticism not to condemn you personally but to suggest that anonymous posts aren't treated by readers with the same weight as non-anonymous posts. The time you spend to type up a post is automatically wasted to some degree. I point out, for instance, that academic journals almost never permit anonymous articles. And, academic articles almost rarely to never rely upon anonymous sources unless there is a a particular compelling reason in context to do so (such as an article on anonymous articles).

But there are also some risks that go along with that. As an extreme example, look at what Daniel Peterson gets subjected to. I’m also an amateur apologist.

This is the justification for anonymity that I think is the worst.

I have had severe problems with posting with my real name. Emails to the managing partners of my firm; to my stake president; to the California State Bar. I've had one of the September Six post highly personal things about me on a blog which led to personal attacks against my firm and me and my clients in relation to my support of Prop 8 (which, as a libertarian, I did not really support until the priesthood asked me to do otherwise). I asked her to remove it; she wouldn't. I told her that my family and my religion were private matters and not for her public discourse; she still wouldn't desist.

But, I figure, in this life you have only one chance at moral courage and you might as well stand up and be counted.

Edited December 8, 2011 by rcrocket

[Scott Lloyd]

I guess it is in the interpretation. But I think there is virulent anti-Mormonism on the internet nonetheless.

What is at issue is whether it is being argued that the Internet is the inherent cause of it. I don't think Sky or anyone else here has made that claim.

I have never, and there are no exceptions except in one or two isolated instances a very long time ago, and only once or twice, posted without using my own name. Ever. If I use a screen name, like "Yahoo Bot," either my personal data or my signature contains a link to my personal identification. As on this board, my personal data identifies exactly whom I might be.

Then I commend you for your openness. But I distinctly recall a time, years ago, on the predecessor to this board, that you were posting under two screen names. You were new to the board. The topic was the limited geography theory for the Book of Mormon and you were posting with your real name as well as a screen handle that reflected your Church calling at the time which, I believe, was bishop. At the time, you also identified yourself as a past FARMS Review contributor. I began to suspect that you were Robert Crockett, the author of a review of Bagley's Mountain Meadows Massacre book, a review that I had greatly admired and still do.

The jig was up when you responded to one of my posts to one of your identities using your other identity.

And I'm not saying that a web host must do that. If I want to set up a website discussing coin collecting, I have no obligation to permit discussion about stamp collecting. And this board strives, it looks like to me, to accomplish its objectives in a fair manner.

But a newspaper is perceived of as being a somewhat different animal. In order for it to be credible, generally speaking, it is required by societal norms to permit alternate voices to have their say.

In case it hasn't been clear up to now, let me emphasize that I am drawing a distinction between contrary opinion — "alternate voices," if you will — and indecent, uncivil speech or writing. It is the latter that I object to.

Sure, it can be like the Deseret News and squelch anti-Church diatribe, but it sacrifices its reputation for independence. I'm not saying the DN is wrong in doing that by any means. But the DN has chosen to be what it is, and the Salt Lake Tribune has chosen to be what it is, a mainstream paper.

Who made the rule that to be a "mainstream paper," a publication must allow unfettered, malicious, uncivil dialog? It was a scant generation ago that virtually every "mainstream" newspaper exercised control over what reader comment it published. That was back when the letters-to-the-editor column was the only outlet for such discourse, and every reputable newspaper published only those letters that, in its judgment, were responsible and thoughtful, even as they vigorously argued this or that point. That all changed with the advent of the Internet. I think it bodes ill for us if, in order to earn society's respect, a newspaper may not exercise any moderation over what reader comment it chooses to publish.

By the way, let me reiterate that the Deseret News does not squelch critical opinion about the Church on its comment boards, it only endeavors to filter out uncivil speech, as Daniel Peterson, a columnist for the paper, has attested above.

What do you mean by OK? I don't think it "OK" to view or produce porn, but I don't think it OK to censor it, otherwise you're looking at censoring other kinds of offensive speech, perhaps to the point of prohibiting Mormon Elders from going door to door -- something several cities have attempted.

You continue to miss my point. Allowing privately owned media to choose what they publish does not do violence to freedom of speech. Hatemongers and purveyors of porn are free to find other media outlets or to publish on their own. I'll reiterate a sentence from my prior post: The same libertarian ethic that allows you to express your views in public prevents you from requiring someone else to publish or broadcast them.

And you can't "libel" Mormons in general, from a legal perspective. Is it "OK' to say false and malicious things about the Church? I revert to my comment about porn.

Whether or not you call it libel from a legal perspective, you can, with a broad brush, harm entire groups of individuals — conceivably in the hundreds, thousands or millions — with false and malicious speech or writing. As a citizen in a democratic society, maybe I have to tolerate it, but I don't have to participate in its publication. Indeed, a sense of corporate responsibility would discourage it.

Edited December 8, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Bob Crockett]

Then I commend your openness. But I distinctly recall a time, years ago, on the predecessor to this board, that you were posting under two screen names. You were new to the board. The topic was the limited geography theory for the Book of Mormon and you were posting with your real name as well as a screen handle that reflected your Church calling at the time which, I believe, was bishop. The jig was up when you responded to one of my posts to one of your identities using your other identity.

Perhaps my age has caught up with me and I have forgotten something, but I just don't recall that. I used to post as "Bishop Lee" on the other board and plainly identified who I really was, but I certainly don't recall doing anything like that here. I've looked at the old names on the member list and don't see that name. I was originally invited to come to this board at the request of Scott Gordon to address a MMM issue and I posted with my current name and honestly cannot recall posting under any other name. If I really did something as hypocritically foolish as that then I condemn myself and you have my apologies. But, well, maybe you'll point it out to me. As you can see, I am a very light poster and my posts are spread over eight years. It is possible I have forgotten such an atrocity.

I hold to my position that free speech contemplates contemptible speech about religion and its adherents. Is that OK for a Latter-day Saint to do? No. Is it OK to legislate against it? No. Is it OK to run a newspaper that censors such speech? No, if you want to be a mainstream newspaper. Yes if you don't want to be such a newspaper.

Edited December 8, 2011 by rcrocket

[Scott Lloyd]

Perhaps my age has caught up with me and I have forgotten something, but I just don't recall that. I used to post as "Bishop Lee" on the other board and plainly identified who I really was, but I certainly don't recall doing anything like that here. I've looked at the old names on the member list and don't see that name. I was originally invited to come to this board at the request of Scott Gordon to address a MMM issue and I posted with my current name and honestly cannot recall posting under any other name. If I really did something as hypocritically foolish as that then I condemn myself and you have my apologies. But, well, maybe you'll point it out to me. As you can see, I am a very light poster and my posts are spread over eight years. It is possible I have forgotten such an atrocity.

When this board made its last overhaul, all of the past threads except those that had been archived were deleted. I'm sure what I have referred to has long since vanished into cyber oblviion.

But to me, it's all water under the bridge. I hold no ill will or grudge about about it, and I'm quite willing to accept your word at present that you hold the position you do about public anonymity. As I said, we are in agreement on this point.

I have a far graver concern about your point below:

I hold to my position that free speech contemplates contemptible speech about religion and its adherents. Is that OK for a Latter-day Saint to do? No. Is it OK to legislate against it? No. Is it OK to run a newspaper that censors such speech? No, if you want to be a mainstream newspaper. Yes if you don't want to be such a newspaper.

Clearly, we clash on this point. I hold firm to the stance I have expressed that decent people should champion, encourage and support decent behavior, in mass media as in other aspects of life, and I decry any notion that to earn respectability or credibility, a media outlet must participate in the publication of malicious discourse.

Edited December 8, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Avatar4321]

Why do some people have to be down-right mean and nasty on the internet when it comes to the LDS faith? Why is our faith the target of so much satire? Why is this generally accepted? Nearly every LDS related article is followed by anonymous reader comments that reflect a prejudice and even hatred towards Mormonism. I’ve read all sorts of awful things. And yet we Mormons are the ones that get accused of being intolerant. I’ve seen it time and time again. It seems to be especially prevalent right now because of Mitt Romney’s candidacy. The Salt Lake Tribune is a prime example. Genuine disagreements are one thing, but when does it cross the line into bigotry? What should our responses be towards this kind of thing? Is it even worth it to try and give a response? Do you think the Mormon.org profiles have hurt or helped with this? Do outsiders really better understand us and our faith? Or has it stayed about the same?

Thoughts?

Why? Because Satan is real and wants to destroy this Church. And because the members are neglecting their responsibilities. I say that as someone who is also guilty of that.

We should be qualifying ourselves and preparing ourselves for the Holy Spirit and the power of God. Instead, we live below our privileges. There is real divine power in living the principles and ordinances of the Gospel. Yet we sell ourselves short.

If we were more faithful, if we obeyed the Lord like we ought to, the Angels could not be with held from us. We would have the power of God to go forth like Nephi and Lehi did in Helaman and call the nations to repentence in a way where the wicked will be angry at us because they have no choice but to believe us and the honest of heart will go to Christ and repent of their sins.

Honestly, I don't know about the current profiles are helping or hurting. I think it's done both. I think we need to start being less concerned with PR and more concerned with fulfilling our responsibilities in testifying to the world. That is what this world needs. They need to know that Jesus is the Christ. They need to understand the Plan of Redemption and the truth about the Restoration so they can seek forgiveness and have hope in this life and the life to come.

I think our General Authorities understand this. From what I've seen they've been pleading for us to step up for decades. I think it's time we do or before long there wont be time to. The Lord is coming. I don't know when He will make His appearance. But we need to prepare ourselves and the people around us.

[Daniel Peterson]

I have no great objection to anonymous or pseudonymous posting, as such. I do find it objectionable, though, when specific, named people are attacked from behind a curtain of anonymity. That seems cowardly to me, and unjust. And I have considerable experience as the target of such attacks.