Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

[_Bazooka]

There are nigh on 20,000 Bishops serving currently in the USA.
What public information is available to DCP that would enable him to cross reference his list of clients against the names of these 20,000 Bishops?

[_Darth J]

I am baffled. Since when is who is or is not a Bishop confidential information?

It's usually not confidential and what's completely baffling is that Everybody Wang Chung is the one who 'outed' himself as a Bishop. He's the one who supposedly shared in real life information on the public board and this whole dust up is because someone decided to verify his claims--and he's also the one who gave Dan the opportunity to verify his public claims by also telling the public board he was going on this tour of Israel--and he's the one who said he'd provide proof of his trip.

Everybody Wang Chung handed Dan the opportunity AND incentive to check on his claims because he's been such a public critic and acted very much NOT like a Bishop on this board. There have been a number of us who've questioned his claims.

Everybody Wang Chung practically threw down the gauntlet for Dan to look into it. It was not a violation. This is one of the situations this information was made available to Bishops to use. So that claims like this can be verified.

Alter Idem, please post your real name, address, phone number, and date of birth for yourself, your spouse, and each of your children. Since you have nothing to hide, you should not worry about a total stranger being interested in that information

I just want to verify that you really are a member of the LDS Church. You threw down the gauntlet by posting on this board and claiming to be LDS.

There is of course no valid reason why you would not want random strangers whom you only interact with over the internet to have that information, for God knows what purpose. You're not another one of those anonymous cowards, are you?

Is it okay with you if I ask the mods to tell me your IP address, should you refuse my completely reasonable request?

[_Darth J]

I am baffled. Since when is who is or is not a Bishop confidential information?

It's usually not confidential

Disingenuous Equivocation says hi!

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Here are the problems with your suggestion: (a) we don't know who the bishop friend is,

How is that a problem? If you really feel this is some egregious breach, then just turn in Peterson himself. If authorities think its a breach, then they'll get out of him who this friend of his is.

That's a standard classic-FARMS tactic, not mine. Besides, it was the bishop (not DCP) who violated the "conditions of use." Since only DCP knows who that is, he's going to have to turn him in.

... and (b) DCP has been uncharacteristically silent about all this

I think he's said what he's wanted. It appears he finds it a laughable offense.

Possibly, but knowing DCP's style, highly unlikely. I think he's soiling his pants over his loose lips getting himself (and his bishop friend) into this mess.

[_stemelbow]

I will. I'm well-known for being both fair and open. I will say, "Are LDS bishops permitted to look up private church records in order to expose the identities and/or investigate the claims of anonymous posters on Internet message boards whom the bishop in question has no connection to? Because I know of a bishop who did this recently, and gave the information he learned of to a regular member, and his defenders say this is an acceptable use of church information. I'm not comfortable allowing the church to create a nonmember spouse record on me if that is the case. I don't want someone who takes issue with something I said on the Internet trying to access the information that the church has on me via his or her bishop friend."

Which part of that do you find to be an unfair assessment of the situation?

Pretty much all of it.

"Are LDS bishops permitted to look up private church records in order to expose the identities and/or investigate the claims of anonymous posters on Internet message boards whom the bishop in question has no connection to"

There is a connection. This guy is boasting to be a bishop who attacks DCP.

" Because I know of a bishop who did this recently, and gave the information he learned of to a regular member, and his defenders say this is an acceptable use of church information."

Your not divulging what was the interaction between Peterson and his friend bishop. Your merely painting it to your liking-making it appear it is something quite different than it is. He didn't give him information, anything more than a no, as far as we know. And you aren't telling theh story at all. The list of names came from DCP with a question if any were bishops. Why would you intentionally be so coy if you are trying your best to be fair? Sounds really weird, even as if your actual interaction will be even worse than this.

"I'm not comfortable allowing the church to create a nonmember spouse record on me if that is the case. I don't want someone who takes issue with something I said on the Internet trying to access the information that the church has on me via his or her bishop friend."

I'm very curious why you would be so deceptive like this. It's not as if this example has anything to do with accessing information that the church has on you. Indeed, Peterson doesn't even know who Everybody Wang Chung actually is. He clearly thinks Everybody Wang Chung is lying. he just wanted more confirmation on that.

I think you taking issue with it, like you have clearly shows you aren't fair at all. I don't know who thinks so, I'm sure there are some charitable complimentors out there, but I simply don't see it.

[_Ceeboo]

Mind-blowing!

Utterly and completely mind-blowing!

Wow!

Peace,
Ceeboo

The following email was sent to me at work:

Dear XXXXXXXX (a.k.a. Kishkumen, a.k.a. Scratch),

We’ve never met, but you have come to my attention as an anti-Mormon on the internet. I recently read the following statements by you on the Mormon Discussion board.

“Personally, all I had hoped would happen was an end to the practice of sliming of members. ... Even if it is a small portion of what they do, it was a shameful blot on its record, and a shameful blot on the university that supports it. Far better to be done with the skinny-l slam tactics and turn to more interesting and legitimate scholarship.”

“I will say that I hope the Mormon Studies Review succeeds in its new direction, if that new direction excludes attacks on LDS Church members in good standing.”

First, I should note that John Dehlin is not a “member in good standing.” He is an apostate who doesn’t believe in God, in Christ, in the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith’s prophetic call, etc. etc. And that’s fine; lots of good sincere people don’t believe in the church. The problem is tries to pretend to be a “member in good standing” to one audience, but shows his true colors to another. Furthermore, no one is sliming him. I’ve read the article, you haven’t. Greg Smith’s article simply calls attention to the reality behind Dehlin’s carefully crafted, though utterly false, public image.

Second, I note the high irony in your objection to “sliming” and “attacking” a member of the Church, while participating with great gusto in sliming and attacking Dan Peterson--a member of the church in good standing, and a good friend of mine. Why is it just and meritorious for you to relentlessly “slime” and “attack” Dan?

How would you feel if there was a discussion board in which you were relentlessly attacked, slandered, maligned, lied about, mocked, degraded, etc.? What if this had been going on for a decade? What if confidential letters regarding your promotion and tenure at XXXXXXX were leaked to that board? What if they became the subject of relentless mirth and slander?

How would you feel if I were to draw attention to your chairman and dean about your active and extensive participation as Kiskumen and Scratch in the most vile and repugnantly bigoted anti-Mormon discussion board I’ve had the misfortune to ever see? (So what if you aren’t Scratch--all we need to do is accuse you of it, right? Rumor is truth on the Mormon Discussion board, right?--at least when it’s about Dan Peterson.) Do you think your chair and dean would approve of this use of your time? Do you think that they would be happy or dismayed that you spend your time prancing around on anti-Mormon message boards rather than preparing classes, researching, and writing professional publications? Do you think it might be considered this a “shameful blot on the university that supports you?” How would they feel about your extensive participation in, say, a similar discussion board filled with raving anti-Semites?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Indeed, Peterson doesn't even know who Everybody Wang Chung actually is. He clearly thinks Everybody Wang Chung is lying. he just wanted more confirmation on that.

Utter rubbish. DCP wanted Wang Chung's in real life information, and we all know it. Time to open your eyes, Stem.

[_stemelbow]

That's a standard classic-FARMS tactic, not mine. Besides, it was the bishop (not DCP) who violated the "conditions of use." Since only DCP knows who that is, he's going to have to turn him in.

And only his local high council can evaluate whether he should be disciplined and not you. They would be the judge of whether he actually broke the rule. And, I can pretty much guarantee they would laugh at the prospect. Are you saying you disagree? Do you really think he violated the spirit of the rule? It clearly has a different meaning to it than what you guys are tyring to give it, no?

Possibly, but knowing DCP's style, highly unlikely. I think he's soiling his pants over his loose lips getting himself (and his bishop friend) into this mess.

uh...I think you have his style mixed up with someone elses. In fact, I would suggest what you think you know is actually what you wish were so.

[_Darth J]

David "Stemelbow"--

Still haven't seen your address, phone number, etc.

In addition to that, please articulate the official church business Peterson was conducting with his detective work using church resources. Did Peterson have permission from the priesthood authority over Everybody Wang Chung to undertake this investigation? Please limit your response to verifiable facts.

Alter Idem--

Since it usually is not confidential who a bishop is, please post the name of the bishop who performed this detective work at Peterson's request.

[_stemelbow]

Utter rubbish. DCP wanted Wang Chung's in real life information, and we all know it. Time to open your eyes, Stem.

Time to produce something other than your own personal hostility towards him to back up your claims about him. I mean seriously. You don't get to say whatever you like about someone in order to condemn them.

Do you think DCP actually does not Everybody Wang Chung?

Do you really think DCP thought Everybody Wang Chung was telling the truth about being a bishop and going on the trip?

Time for you to stop your hostility.