KevinG Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 General Authorities do not publish anonymously. They do have security guards.I still think it is a good idea to separate my private religious discussions from my professional on-line identity. Especially since my religious opinions have nothing to do with the way I make my living. Sorry but I fear bigotry could lose me jobs or interviews if someone wanted to "out" me and create a stink.
Mark Beesley Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 How does anyone on this Board know that anyone is using their real name? Because they said so? <head scratching>
cinepro Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 How does anyone on this Board know that anyone is using their real name? Because they said so? <head scratching>I've met a few people from the message boards IRL, including DCP, Julianne and even rcrocket himself. So they can verify that I'm not really using my real name.
Mark Beesley Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 I've met a few people from the message boards IRL, including DCP, Julianne and even rcrocket himself. So they can verify that I'm not really using my real name.But how do I even know that you are telling the truth about who you have met?
mercyngrace Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 (edited) rcrocket,Some of the nicest people I've met online use screen names and some of the most unChristlike communication I've read online has been written by people who use their real names. The fact that jurors can be convinced that there is some causality or correlation between using a pseudonym and being a jerk, doesn't necessarily make it so.MnG Edited December 15, 2011 by mercyngrace 1
wenglund Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 (edited) What I gather from the divergent responses is that the use of real vs. anonymous screen names depends upon one's objective for posting online.If one is wishing to make a name for oneself, establish or extend their IRL reputation, or to demonstrate one's courage and the strength of one's convictions, etc., then the use of one's real name may be of value.However, if one simply wishes to have the slight benefit of a venue to periodically, informally, and not too seriously express and share opinions among relative strangers without the potential hassles of cyberspace, then posting anonymously seem perfectly fine.I actually like how anonymity enables some people to be their true selves or show certain sides of themselves that they otherwise wouldn't, even if it is, more often than not, ugly. I prefer that if the ugliness is going to surface, that it surfaces in public/cyber arena where it can be accounted for and perhaps addressed, rather than in private. It is good to know, as is the case on certain other Mormon-related boards, just how deep and widespread is the vile animosity and victimological resentment against the restored gospel and certain leaders and member of the faith. And, to me, it is better to have an online place to anonymously vent and let off steam rather than having such negative sentiments expressed secretly through vandalism to church buildings or physical and verbal violence inflicted in real life.Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited December 15, 2011 by wenglund 2
Bernard Gui Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 Posting anonymously is a moral failure...I do find it interesting to read the rationalization that security is necessary on the internet and therefore anonymity is compelled... But, better not to drive at all if that is one's moral compass.But, that is just my hobby horse and few believe me here, so I'll move on.rc - That's kind of harsh to some who have been victimized on the Internet. The damage can be serious. I recall some of the early Brethren using code names in Church publications. Bernard 2
Bernard Gui Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 I just wanted to point out that “Erin Eldridge” wrote an entire book published by Deseret Book using a pseudonym entitled: Born That Way?: A True Story of Overcoming Same-Sex Attraction with Insights for Friends, Families, and Leaders. There are other examples like this. Is her book any less worthwhile or credible simply because she used a pseudonym? When is it okay or not okay to use a pseudonym? Is there some clear line? Or is it more arbitrary? Where is the line, if there is one?The names of authors dealing with sensitive subjects are routinely protected in the Ensign. Bernard
Anijen Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 I know for a fact of a real name being used and rcrocket has belittled the user assuming it was a pseudonym. The problem I have is, I cannot say who it is because I would have to "out" the person and that is not my place to do. Furthermore I will be accused of hypocrisy for making it up and conveniently hiding behind his seemingly pretend name with my own screen name. And yes I do it for protection and as an example. My oldest daughter was stalked by someone she befriended on the internet (Facebook) and it was a bit scary for a time. Fortunately it turned out okay and was harmless crush but one not invited or wanted by my daughter. It could have been worse. I since asked my children to not post pictures of them that would identify who or where they are (wearing school shirts etc). I have messaged people in private many from this board and I have divulged my real name to them, many know who I am. I am friends with many on Facebook and have shared papers and ideas with many here too. I believe I have even messaged rcrocket a few times and once I have signed my real name (I will have to check past sent messages). There are times when yes anonymity is a good idea and it would take a very strong persuasive argument to make me yield from that position, thus far none has. I quickly checked the scriptures (less than one minute search) and found even the Savior did not want recognition at certain times.And Jesus answering saith unto them, Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these thingsAnd her parents were astonished: but he charged them that they should tell no man
cinepro Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 (edited) The names of authors dealing with sensitive subjects are routinely protected in the Ensign.BernardYou must be thinking of Sister Withheld's articles:Name Withheld Takes Own LifeBy Eric D. SniderDRAPER, UT—After several divorces, an addiction to pornography, sexual abuse, a bout with alcoholism, bankruptcy, not feeling welcome in her ward, homosexuality, multiple spells of church inactivity, and mental illness, Draper resident Name Withheld took her own life Saturday. She was 47.Withheld wrote many articles about her personal traumas for the Ensign, the LDS Church’s official membership magazine. Among friends, she was known to be anything from manic-depressive to a gambling addict; among Ensign readers, she provided hope that they too could “break the cycle.”“I’m always breaking one cycle or another,” Withheld said in 1999, just after writing “When a Spouse Has Been Unfaithful” for the Ensign. “I worry one day the cycles will start breaking me.”She is preceded in death by several children who also committed suicide, a husband who died, parents who left the church then died, and a premature baby who died in infancy. She is survived by faithful home teachers who never failed in their duty and a Relief Society president who always kept her in her prayers.“Sister Withheld was beset by many problems,” said her bishop, Randy Taylor. “I’m amazed she didn’t do this sooner.” Edited December 15, 2011 by cinepro
Bernard Gui Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 You must be thinking of Sister Withheld's articles:Mrs. Gui and I facilitate a family support group. Sadly, there are people who have to deal with the things described (spoofed?) in that article. What is the source?I was checking on some of the names of "friends" on my son Graspino's old MySpace account. One of them was a 47-year-old man pretending to be a teenager. We terminated that account. MernardBernard
Bob Crockett Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 I know for a fact of a real name being used and rcrocket has belittled the user assuming it was a pseudonym. Oh? Belittled? Well, then you and he have my apology. I once thought Kevin Graham was using a pseudonym and I was proven wrong when he said he wasn't.
lachrymolotov Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 I would imagine that even if you posted anonymously online and were asked about it in court or in a lie detector test, that you shouldn't have any problems as long as you are willing to stand behind what you say and take ownership even when you are anonymous. How many millions of people post online anonymously? Should they all be discredited? I think that would be silly. It is difficult enough to maintain privacy in this world. Just to be credible, I need to have a body of work accessible when someone enters my name in Google. I need to have a LinkedIn account so clients may see that I am not a bum and can maintain professional relationships. I need a Facebook so my friends and family can still know I am alive when I have been on the other side of the world for months at a time. I need three separate email accounts. Technology is getting out of hand.BUTI think the right to free speech is very important and posting anonymously allows a new level of that freedom. Certainly, it can get ugly, but the scope of the great conversation is important for the entire world and if people get offended sometimes... well, freedom of speech IS the right to offend. Besides, being offended says a lot more about the person who takes offense than the one who causes it.If juries and the government are taking offense at what individuals post online, then they are not respecting an individual's right to freedom of speech. If they are digging up what they say, then perhaps they are infringing on their privacy.
thesometimesaint Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 I don't see anyone here saying that Time or the photographer doesn't have the right to publish what they did. My objection is the manner in which my faith was presented. Anyone of even nominal intelligence can snap a picture with a camera. It takes some of personal integrity to accurately present his subjects.
lachrymolotov Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 I would imagine this was posted in the wrong thread. Either way, your position is a silly one since cameras don't ever lie or misrepresent anything. If you look at the pictures without knowing anything about them, they wouldn't give you any reason to be offended... well, maybe that guy's butt, but it is just a butt, after all. We all have them.
wenglund Posted December 16, 2011 Posted December 16, 2011 (edited) Either way, your position is a silly one since cameras don't ever lie or misrepresent anything. That's right. Cameras never lie. Albert Einstein actually looks like Marilyn MonroeAnd, this guy really is holding the moon in his hand;Silly indeed!!Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited December 16, 2011 by wenglund
lachrymolotov Posted December 16, 2011 Posted December 16, 2011 Your perception is what is lying to you. The camera is showing what is right in front of it. Also... best discussed in the correct thread.Thanks
3DOP Posted December 19, 2011 Posted December 19, 2011 Some of us may have wanted at one time or another to explore positions antithetical to our current status without the possibility of identification. If one were an LDS bishop who was having doubts it seems prudent to take care not to reveal oneself at least until the doubts were resolved one way or other. If one can be identified with a particular movement or school of thought, but does not want to be considered a spokesman for the same, it might be another reason for withholding one's name. 1
Bob Crockett Posted December 19, 2011 Posted December 19, 2011 (edited) Some of us may have wanted at one time or another to explore positions antithetical to our current status without the possibility of identification. If one were an LDS bishop who was having doubts it seems prudent to take care not to reveal oneself at least until the doubts were resolved one way or other. If one can be identified with a particular movement or school of thought, but does not want to be considered a spokesman for the same, it might be another reason for withholding one's name.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. Edited December 19, 2011 by rcrocket
Stargazer Posted December 19, 2011 Posted December 19, 2011 I've met a few people from the message boards IRL, including DCP, Julianne and even rcrocket himself. So they can verify that I'm not really using my real name.Unless you are the owner of this company:http://www.cinepro.com/
cinepro Posted December 19, 2011 Posted December 19, 2011 Interestingly, in 1954, President Kimball gave a talk about a particularly racist and disturbing letter he had received, and also shared his thoughts on those who expressed their opinions anonymously:This has been a glorious conference. It pleases me greatly to notice that at each succeeding conference there is a larger sprinkling of Japanese and Chinese brothers and sisters; of Hawaiians and other islanders; of Indians, Mexicans, Spanish-Americans and others. It makes me very happy indeed, and I wish to address my remarks this morning in behalf of those minorities.Recently there came to my desk a letter, anonymously written. Generally the wastebasket receives all such messages, written by people who have not the courage to sign their statements. But this time I saved it. It reads in part as follows:I never dreamed I would live to see the day when the Church would invite an Indian buck to talk in the Salt Lake Tabernacle—an Indian buck appointed a bishop—an Indian squaw to talk in the Ogden Tabernacle—Indians to go through the Salt Lake Temple—The sacred places desecrated by the invasion of everything that is forced on the white race. . .This letter now goes into the fire also, but it gives me the theme for the words I wish to say today.But, as others have pointed out, I don't think posting using a moniker is the same as posting "anonymously".
Bob Crockett Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 (edited) But, as others have pointed out, I don't think posting using a moniker is the same as posting "anonymously".Of course it is. It is the same. Unless the moniker is a pseudonym, like when most people knew who authored various pieces of the Federalist Papers when Alexander Hamilton was using a pseudonym. Or when church authorities and enemies could figure out who the code names were in the early revelations.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. Edited December 20, 2011 by rcrocket
Stargazer Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 Of course it is. It is the same. Unless the moniker is a pseudonym, like when most people knew who authored various pieces of the Federalist Papers when Alexander Hamilton was using a pseudonym. Or when church authorities and enemies could figure out who the code names were in the early revelations.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.I will admit that I read your last sentence over and over again trying to parse out what you meant by it, but ultimately failed. What the heck are you saying?
Bob Crockett Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 I will admit that I read your last sentence over and over again trying to parse out what you meant by it, but ultimately failed. What the heck are you saying?As a general matter, decent people don't hide behind an anonymous avatar to say negative things about another or another's religious beliefs. Indecent people see nothing wrong with it, or justify their conduct by saying that they aren't saying negative things and that all they say are positive and uplifting things.But, really now, this is just a silly hobby horse for me and nobody's ever going to suffer for making anonymous posts unless caught.
Stargazer Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 As a general matter, decent people don't hide behind an anonymous avatar to say negative things about another or another's religious beliefs. Indecent people see nothing wrong with it, or justify their conduct by saying that they aren't saying negative things and that all they say are positive and uplifting things.But, really now, this is just a silly hobby horse for me and nobody's ever going to suffer for making anonymous posts unless caught.Thanks for squaring that away for me.As I've said before, if I put my real name up there nobody would know who it is because there are probably a quarter million people named "Mike Clark" in the United States alone. My name is anonymity, at least on the web. "Stargazer" here, or especially "Cyberherbalist" (my word coinage) elsewhere on the web, are uniquely my own. 1
Recommended Posts