Elder Cook Decries "Flaming" And Hiding Behind A Mask

[Scott Lloyd]

A very good and important talk by Elder Quentin L. Cook of the Quorum of the Twelve last night at BYU-Idaho, part of the CES broadcast devotional series. Here's my Deseret News report.

I thought this portion of his remarks very interesting:

But there are other "insidious behaviors that poison society and undermine basic morality," he said. "It is common today to hide one's identity when writing hateful, vitriolic, bigoted communications anonymously online. Some refer to it as flaming."

Some institutions try to control it, he said, noting, "For instance, the New York Times won't tolerate comments where there are personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity, impersonations, incoherence and shouting.

Elder Cook denounced "any use of the Internet to bully, destroy a reputation or place a person in a bad light" and said anonymity makes people more likely to engage in such behavior.

It's ironic that some online anonymous commenters regarding this article are already violating the spirit of Elder Cook's counsel. Since the Deseret News moderates on-line reader comments, one can only guess at the even worse bile others have tried without success to post while hiding behind the mask of anonymity.

For the record, Scott Lloyd is my real name. I have never used a fake name or persona to post my opinions on line.

Edited March 5, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[KevinG]

Article comments - while sometimes entertaining and provocative - are probably a sign of the end times.

[Scott Lloyd]

Article comments - while sometimes entertaining and provocative - are probably a sign of the end times.

Many of them certainly fall under the scriptural description of "calling evil good and good evil."

But I think they mainly demonstrate pooled ignorance and bigotry — which have been with us for a very long time. Look at the persecutions in early Church history for an example.

[BCSpace]

But there are other "insidious behaviors that poison society and undermine basic morality," he said. "It is common today to hide one's identity when writing hateful, vitriolic, bigoted communications anonymously online. Some refer to it as flaming."

Some institutions try to control it, he said, noting, "For instance, the New York Times won't tolerate comments where there are personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity, impersonations, incoherence and shouting.

There are also some not anonymous at all who hide behind the screen of leadership, or tenure, or the front of journalism and flame.

[Scott Lloyd]

Incidentally, a portion of my DesNews article that got trimmed — presumably because of space constraints — is this continuation of the quote from the New York Times:

"We have found that people who use their names carry on more engaging, respectful conversations."

By and large, I agree.

[Scott Lloyd]

Here's a more full report of Elder Cook's talk that I wrote for the Church News website, although there's not much additional content regarding the matter of Internet flaming.

But here's a passage that pertains generally to the behavior of hiding behind a mask:

"One of your greatest protections against making bad choices is to not put on any mask of anonymity," Elder Cook declared. "If you ever find yourself wanting to do so, please know it is a serious sign of danger and one of the adversary's tools to get you to do something you should not do. One of the reasons we advise missionaries to dress conservatively and the elders to be clean-shaven is so that there will be no question as to who they are and how they should act. "

Edited March 5, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[BCSpace]

The Church has got it up now on the home page:

http://www.lds.org/broadcasts/languages/ces-devotionals/2012/03?lang=eng

[Scott Lloyd]

The Church has got it up now on the home page:

http://www.lds.org/b...012/03?lang=eng

Good. It's worth a read.

[KevinG]

In the spirit of openness I just asked the admins to change my name to reflect my real name. I did not feel safe however adding my full last name. There are some out there that will intentionally do harm and I don't want to be a victim of them. So DaddyG is now KevinG - which to my Boy Scouts won't seem strange because they already shorten my unpronounceable last name to "G" as in Brother G.

[Gohan]

I was there for it at the I-Center last night, it was a great opportunity to be there and here from an apostle here in Rexburg. An awesome semester in general in that regard, as we were privileged to have Elder Perry come earlier this semester as well.

Loved the message, thought it was very powerful.

[cacheman]

Although I can empathize with Elder Cook's desire for less contention and 'flaming' in internet discussions, I disagree with several of his thoughts. First of all, the presence of anonymous 'flaming' is not necessarily an indictment on anonymity. Ironically, in an age in which reputations and careers can be damaged based on internet slander, anonymity offers a protective barrier. Likewise, anonymity can protect against identity theft, and in certain situations offer a means to expose wrongdoing without fear of reprisal such as is the case with governmental and corporate whistleblowers. The idea that the desire for anonymity is a serious sign of danger and one of the adversary's tools to get you to do something you should not do", appears to be not well thought out. Likewise, the denouncement of "any use of the Internet to ........ or place a person in a bad light" is overly broad. We might as well remove half of the news stories on the internet, and nearly all political discourse.

That being said, I agree that people shouldn't say things under the cloak of anonymity that wouldn't otherwise. The inability of some to do so is a moral failing that is only peripherally related to the ease of anonymity. My 2 cents....

cacheman

[BCSpace]

That being said, I agree that people shouldn't say things under the cloak of anonymity that wouldn't otherwise. The inability of some to do so is a moral failing that is only peripherally related to the ease of anonymity. My 2 cents....

I agree. However, I did not view the broadcast and currently, the links on the Church's site are not playing for me. So for me, I am still looking for more context in Cook's reported statments.

[cacheman]

I agree. However, I did not view the broadcast and currently, the links on the Church's site are not playing for me. So for me, I am still looking for more context in Cook's reported statments.

Sounds wise...

[frankenstein]

So when is the "coming out" party, and does cottage cheese and ham chunks go with jello?

[Kumenonhi]

I think I will use my real name from now on.

[Kumenonhi]

I am using my sons username to write this post. A moderator fixed/changed my old username from Anijen to Jeff Holt, however when I log on I can not view or post. Could this be fixed please?

Thanks

Jeff Holt formerly known as Anijen

[mercyngrace]

So for me, I am still looking for more context in Cook's reported statements.

My opinion, for the little that's it's worth, is that a man's character is best revealed when he thinks no one is looking. Changing user names might create a social inhibitor (shame, if that still exists in Western culture anywhere), but it won't change hearts. The real change that needs to come if we are to reclaim decency in public discourse will be generated by how we communicate, not how we call ourselves.

Edited March 6, 2012 by mercyngrace

[LDSToronto]

If I were to post with my real name, it would be easy enough to find out where I live and where I work. There are well-documented stories of members of this discussion board using that type of information to contact employers of so-called "apostate" or "anti-mormon" posters to cause trouble; similarly, there are accounts of people contacting family members, including minor children.

That said, if I did post with my real name and that type of thing did happen, I'd phone the police and have numbers traced. No fooling around over here.

H.

Edited March 6, 2012 by LDSToronto

[mbh26]

I will continue to post anonymously. It's my thoughts and ideas that are being judged not me. With anonymity we don't have to constantly worry about who is right, but rather what is right. Gone are the days in which the tactic of punishing the person who dared to give utterance to the elephant in the room can make that elephant go away. For those who value the truth, anonymity has been a giant step forward.

Edited March 6, 2012 by mbh26

[Nemesis]

I prefer everyone stay anonymous. Take your personal security seriously.

Nemesis

[Bob Crockett]

There are also some not anonymous at all who hide behind the screen of leadership, or tenure, or the front of journalism and flame.

But that is not what Elder Cook was addressing. I'm interested to see who responds to his challenge.

If one remains anonymous out of a concern for security it is best to build model trains than post on boards. Anonymous defense of the church is almost as despicable as anonymous insults, but there I go again with the hyperbole.

[Stargazer]

I prefer everyone stay anonymous. Take your personal security seriously.

Nemesis

I am with Nemesis here. I've mentioned this before in other posts, but my name is so common as to make me effectively anonymous even if I use it. In my semi-rural county alone there are four or five us with this name: Mike Clark. There used to be another one (a member of my ward), but he passed away. I actually gain a degree of distinctiveness by use of my screen name, Stargazer.

So I am going to stay "anonymous".

[cdowis]

If I were to post with my real name, it would be easy enough to find out where I live and where I work.

You could also be removed from logging into new.familysearch.org since you admitted to deliberating making submissions in direct violation of your agreement with them. You have good reason for hiding your identity.

BTW, thanks for reminding me. There's something I need to take care of.

Edited March 6, 2012 by cdowis

[LeSellers]

There are well-documented stories of members of this discussion board using that type of information to contact employers of so-called "apostate" or "anti-mormon" posters to cause trouble; similarly, there are accounts of people contacting family members, including minor children.

CFR.

Lehi

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree. However, I did not view the broadcast and currently, the links on the Church's site are not playing for me. So for me, I am still looking for more context in Cook's reported statments.

Once you've read the talk in full, please tell me if and how I've taken something out of context.

Meanwhile, the best judge of whether something has been quoted out of context is the person being quoted. In this instance, my Church News piece was submitted to Elder Cook. It came back with only one minor change: the removal of "Conference" from "BYU-Idaho Conference Center."

Apparently he doesn't think his words were taken out of context.

For the record, out-of-context quotation is a pet peeve of mine -- whether done by professionals or non-professionals -- and while I don't claim perfection, my by-line on a story (using my real name, of course) amounts to my personal certification that I have taken pains to see the reporting is accurate and the quotations are contextual.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Scott Lloyd