Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

[_Darth J]

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?

David, please articulate this purported spirit of the rule, whereby when the church explicitly says that information can only be accessed for official church purposes, a person with no ecclesiastical authority over an anonymous nobody on a message board can convince an agent of the Church to use church resources to investigate the real identify of said anonymous message board poster.

[_MrStakhanovite]

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.

See the OP on Page 1.

[_Darth J]

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.

So what you're saying is that Peterson, who has no ecclesiastical authority over Everybody Wang Chung, should have reported Everybody Wang Chung's online behavior to the Church and let the Church handle any investigation its priesthood leaders felt was warranted.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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.

Do you honestly think a SP would "laugh" if he found out one of his bishops violated the Church's "conditions of use" to help out a friend's personal request? If so, what are you smoking?

Are you saying you disagree?

Yup.

Do you really think he violated the spirit of the rule?

Absolutely, 110%.

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.

I'm just stating the obvious; you're the one in fantasy land.

Tell you what, Stem, let's try an experiment. Make up a name (like John Doe, but be a little more creative), then go to your own bishop and ask him to run that name through the Church leadership directory because you have reason to believe this person is a real bishop but at the same time an apostate who posts on the Internet. Of course, because the name is invented, your bishop will find nothing ... but at least we'll know if he was willing to do the search despite the express "conditions of use." Please report back whether your bishop accepted your request or whether he declined based on the "conditions of use." Thank you in advance for agreeing to do this little experiment.

[_Sammy Jankins]

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.

Okay, so there are members who have access to church records who believe it is acceptable to use them to uncover the in real life identities of anonymous posters.

I guess that's all I really wanted to know.

I recommend that posters keep this in mind. So stuff like previous church positions/locations/ward names should probably be avoided. Any direct mention is "throwing down the gauntlet" and warrants investigation and exposure.

[_harmony]

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.

If it's not confidential, then why does the church hide it? That database is not open to members or the general public. Only certain people have access. So... that makes it private, right? And those people whose information (address, phone number, membership number) is protected by the church's decision to keep their information private, their expectation that their private information will be kept private by the church, has now been violated by an authorized person accessing this private database for an unauthorized reason.

[_Darth J]

Tell you what, Stem, let's try an experiment. Make up a name (like John Doe, but be a little more creative), then go to your own bishop and ask him to run that name through the Church leadership directory because you have reason to believe this person is a real bishop but at the same time an apostate who posts on the Internet. Of course, because the name is invented, your bishop will find nothing ... but at least we'll know if he was willing to do the search despite the express "conditions of use." Please report back whether your bishop accepted your request or whether he declined based on the "conditions of use." Thank you in advance for agreeing to do this little experiment.

I have an additional suggestion. Since it's usually not confidential who a bishop is, make sure to post the name of the bishop you tried this with, and what ward he is in.

[_stemelbow]

See the OP on Page 1.

Go turn them in then. Why all the emptiness? If you have something than your own dislike for him, then do it.

let's read some more:

The records of the Church are confidential, whether they exist on paper, in computers, or in other electronic media. These include membership records, financial records, notes of meetings, official forms and documents (including records of disciplinary councils), and notes made from private interviews.

I see it doesn't say anything about not being able to run a list of people's names to see if any are bishops.

Leaders and clerks are to safeguard Church records by handling, storing, and disposing of them in a way that protects the privacy of individuals.

And whose privacy was not protected here? No one's? Okay, great.

Leaders ensure that information that is gathered from members is (1) limited to what the Church requires and (2) used only for approved Church purposes.

So, in this case, not one piece of information gathered from a member was more than the Church requires and none of it was used at all.

Information from Church records and reports may be given only to those who are authorized to use it.

Define use. I think this is the area in which you'll start getting chuckles from people who ever get this case brougth before them.

Information that is stored electronically must be kept secure and protected by a password (citation omitted). Leaders ensure that such data is not used for personal, political, or commercial purposes. Information from Church records, including historical information, may not be given to individuals or agencies conducting research or surveys.

Again define used. Was there anything in the information accessed by this bishop that was actually used? Not a single piece of information found in the data he accessed was used.

Sorry, Stak. Count this one back up to your own hostility. again.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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.

See the OP for this thread.

Do you think DCP actually does not Everybody Wang Chung?

Huh?

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

Sure, that's why DCP gave his customer list to his bishop buddy to try to find out who Chung was in real life.

Time for you to stop your hostility.

And time for you to get over your man crush on DCP.

[_stemelbow]

Do you honestly think a SP would "laugh" if he found out one of his bishops violated the Church's "conditions of use" to help out a friend's personal request? If so, what are you smoking?

I think he would laugh at the idea that he actually violated anything.

Absolutely, 110%.

Please explain.

I'm just stating the obvious; you're the one in fantasy land.

No the obvious is, Everybody Wang Chung lied. DCP figured he'd confirm that suspicion that most of us have, by sending the list of trip goers to see if any are bishops. Not one piece of data from the actual database accessed by this bishop was ever given to DCP.

Tell you what, Stem, let's try an experiment. Make up a name (like John Doe, but be a little more creative), then go to your own bishop and ask him to run that name through the Church leadership directory because you have reason to believe this person is a real bishop but at the same time an apostate who posts on the Internet. Of course, because the name is invented, your bishop will find nothing ... but at least we'll know if he was willing to do the search despite the express "conditions of use." Please report back whether your bishop accepted your request or whether he declined based on the "conditions of use." Thank you in advance for agreeing to do this little experiment.

What bishop? This is not comparable of course. In no way did this randomly made up person say he went on a trip with me. In no way did this made up person attack me by name on the internet.

Your experiment simply isn't parallel. But, if as you say it is a violation of the "conditions of use" then please report it and we'll see if it is not laughed out of existence or not.