ALarson Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 I don't know if this link has been posted yet, but I thought I'd start another thread rather than derail the other one (regarding the Calderwoods). "Mormons Say Critical Online Comments Draw Threats From Church"http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/19/us/critical-online-comments-put-church-status-at-risk-mormons-say.html?_r=1 From California to Virginia and states in between, more than a dozen Mormons interviewed in the past week said they had recently been informed by their bishops that they faced excommunication or risked losing permission to enter a temple because of comments they had made online about their faith, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.These members said their bishops had questioned them about specific posts they had made on their blogs, Twitter and Facebook, in the comment streams of websites or in conversations in chat rooms.The kinds of comments that have attracted the scrutiny of bishops and stake presidents, who are regional supervisors, include support for the ordination of women; advocacy for same-sex marriage; serious doubts about church history or theology; and, as in Mr. Waterman’s case, protests that the church demands more in tithes than its doctrine requires.
ALarson Posted May 27, 2015 Author Posted May 27, 2015 (edited) This is from last year - not sure if you saw thatNo, I did not....oops! Someone emailed it to me actually and I did not look at the date! So...disregard I gues. (It does give some background info on Waterman though if anyone is interested in reading about it. Looks like he's been close to being disciplined or having a church court held for awhile now?) Edited May 27, 2015 by ALarson
hope_for_things Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 But there are also those who never sought the spotlight, like Dana, a member in the church’s Buena Vista stake in Virginia, who did not want her last name used because she has family in the church. She was very active in the church but supports the ordination of women and same-sex marriage, which church doctrine prohibits. She said that soon after she posted comments anonymously in an online chat room, her bishop sent her emails quoting what she had written and questioning her about her beliefs. On June 1, she said, her bishop phoned and told her to stop posting or face a church disciplinary hearing. Instead, four days later, she and her family resigned their church membership. Thanks for posting this article. This is all unfortunate, but I found this example quoted above the most disturbing. What kind of crazy monitoring system would have to be in place to find anonymous comments made in chat rooms or blogs like this one, and report those to local leaders. Very alarming and I hope this doesn't represent a wider trend in this direction.
ERayR Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 “This is clearly boundary maintenance,” said Jan Shipps, Of course it is. Somebody has to be a watchman on the tower. Boundaries must be maintained. If they were not then soon chaos would take over. 3
rockpond Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 Thanks for posting this article. This is all unfortunate, but I found this example quoted above the most disturbing. What kind of crazy monitoring system would have to be in place to find anonymous comments made in chat rooms or blogs like this one, and report those to local leaders. Very alarming and I hope this doesn't represent a wider trend in this direction. The SCMC: Strengthening Church Members Committee http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_Church_discipline/Strengthening_Church_Members_Committee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strengthening_Church_Members_Committee 2
HappyJackWagon Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 I've known about this committee but hadn't read the FairMormon description. It's disturbing and sounds more like Orwellian Scientology than the faith I grew up in. 3
Popular Post Scott Lloyd Posted May 27, 2015 Popular Post Posted May 27, 2015 (edited) I've known about this committee but hadn't read the FairMormon description. It's disturbing and sounds more like Orwellian Scientology than the faith I grew up in.So it bothers you to be held accountable for public comments you make then? Is that why you post here anonymously? Edited May 27, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 5
JLHPROF Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 So it bothers you to be held accountable for public comments you make then? Is that why you post here anonymously? Most people post anonymously on internet message boards. It's a safety issue, not an accountability one. 2
carbon dioxide Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 Most people post anonymously on internet message boards. It's a safety issue, not an accountability one.One reason I don't use Facebook and I overall like posting my thoughts without people I know coming up to me saying that they saw what I posted on such a day. I am a private person mostly and prefer to have little attention given to me in person. I rarely even speak up in church classes. I prefer to be a fly on the wall most of the time. 1
ALarson Posted May 27, 2015 Author Posted May 27, 2015 So it bothers you to be held accountable for public comments you make then? Is that why you post here anonymously?If I remember correctly, HappyJackWagon has already explained his reasons for posting anonymously to you.
carbon dioxide Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 (edited) So it bothers you to be held accountable for public comments you make then? Is that why you post here anonymously?Some people just don't like having attention drawn to them regardless of what they post. I post on a lot mainstream news and political websites but I never post under my real name. If a website requires Facebook or some other method that forces me to give my real name, I stop posting. Its not about accountability to me but just how I am. To me posting "I love my dog Pepper" under my real name would bother me just as much as a controversial post with my real name. In fact even posting my name in the sacrament meeting program that I am one of the people giving a talk sort of annoys me. Edited May 27, 2015 by carbon dioxide 1
Kenngo1969 Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 ... So...disregard I gues. [sic] Pat, is there an "s"? Sorry; Couldn't resist! We now return you to your regularly scheduled, on topic programming!
Scott Lloyd Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 Most people post anonymously on internet message boards. It's a safety issue, not an accountability one.Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the individual, I suppose.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 (edited) If I remember correctly, HappyJackWagon has already explained his reasons for posting anonymously to you. That may well be. My memory is not perfect. But posting anonymously on message boards is actually peripheral to the point I was making, which was to challenge the bad rap being leveled at the Church for maintaining a sort of clipping service to help local priesthood leaders keep track of the potentially malicious things that members say or write for mass circulation. So I'm supposed to be scandalized by the fact that the Church cares enough to record whether its own members are vilifying it in public? Since the most serious penalty the Church can impose is to withdraw membership from an individual, and even that only happens in extreme cases, the accusation that it is being Orwellian strikes me as being overwrought. Bottom line: Don't say nasty things in public about an individual or entity if you don't want to have to answer for them later. The primary reason I post under my real name is to signify that I stand solidly behind the things I say and am willing to face whatever consequences there might be. I presume that's why you do it. Edited May 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
Teancum Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 So it bothers you to be held accountable for public comments you make then? Is that why you post here anonymously?Wow Simply wow.
teddyaware Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 So it bothers you to be held accountable for public comments you make then? Is that why you post here anonymously? He's not really posting anonymously. I'm sure there a lots of people who can recognize Happy Jack Wagon by his photo. And the fact that he was (is?) a Los Angeles Laker narrows it down even more. 3
Tacenda Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 He's not really posting anonymously. I'm sure there a lots of people who can recognize Happy Jack Wagon by his photo. And the fact that he was (is?) a Los Angeles Laker narrows it down even more.Teddyaware, not all work and no play after all. Actually we need to get Happy's autograph!
Avatar4321 Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 Thanks for posting this article. This is all unfortunate, but I found this example quoted above the most disturbing. What kind of crazy monitoring system would have to be in place to find anonymous comments made in chat rooms or blogs like this one, and report those to local leaders. Very alarming and I hope this doesn't represent a wider trend in this direction.Funny. I read that and the conclusion I came up with is the account is pure fiction simply because there is no way a bishop would know what a ward member says anonymously on the internet. I would think that's obvious 1
Buckeye Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 There are pros and cons to it, but anonymity has its place. Joseph concealed his and other's identities in some D/C sections (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_code_names_in_the_Doctrine_and_Covenants). Christ sometimes kept his identity concealed (see, e.g., Luke 24:13-35). 2
Buckeye Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 Funny. I read that and the conclusion I came up with is the account is pure fiction simply because there is no way a bishop would know what a ward member says anonymously on the internet. I would think that's obvious In my experience, the vast majority of times that bishops meet with members to discuss their online comments, those comments became known to the bishop not because of a committee in SLC but by being forwarded the comments from other members in the area. For example, a member makes a FB post supporting same-sex marriage and another member, who is FB friends, forwards that post to the bishop saying "I'm worried about Sister Smith teaching my kids in primary." Happens all the time. 1
Buckeye Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 FWIW, the NY Times article also discusses Kevin Kloosterman's loss of a temple recommend because he publicly supported SSM. Following comments from Elder Christofferson earlier this year which clarified that members can support SSM and remain in good standing, Kevin posted that he hoped his recommend would be returned (https://twitter.com/kevkloosterman). I haven't heard if it has, but hope so. 3
HappyJackWagon Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 So it bothers you to be held accountable for public comments you make then? Is that why you post here anonymously? Scott, you crack me up. I can picture you lacing your online gloves in search of a fight. You don't disappoint 1
Tacenda Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 http://mormonstories.org/rock-waterman-pre-disciplinary-council/ I think Rock forgot the church is an ever changing church, and it's from continual revelation. But he's not so sure it's coming from God.
hope_for_things Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 So I'm supposed to be scandalized by the fact that the Church cares enough to record whether its own members are vilifying it in public? Since the most serious penalty the Church can impose is to withdraw membership from an individual, and even that only happens in extreme cases, the accusation that it is being Orwellian strikes me as being overwrought. Right, not Orwellian at all, because as long as they only discipline in extreme cases, secretly monitoring their activity is just fine. Nothing to see here folks, move along…
Recommended Posts