Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

[_Darth J]

If I knew who the Bishop was, I would not tell you, you only want his name so you can pillory him along with Dan here on the board. If I knew who it was, I'd thank him for helping Dan.

No, Alter Idem, that information is usually not confidential. Remember your narrative?

Anyway, since Rollo Tomasi only wanted that bishops name to pillory him on a message board, the reason Peterson wanted Everybody Wang Chung's name is ______________________________.

Thank this bishop for helping Peterson what, Alter Idem?

You are smart enough to know that Dan and his friend didn't do anything wrong and if anyone did notify church headquarters of this, it would only bring unwanted scrutiny to Mormondiscussions. I wonder what they'd think of the pages and pages of attacks on leaders, the members, the doctrine, as well as the years of attacks and harassment against people like Dan Peterson and other LDS scholars? While the non-members may not care, it seems to me there are a number of others here who'd like to stay off the church radar.

So the reason our Mormontologist friends are so interested in outing otherwise anonymous posters here is _____________________________________________.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

If I knew who the Bishop was, I would not tell you, you only want his name so you can pillory him along with Dan here on the board. If I knew who it was, I'd thank him for helping Dan.

This statement says a great deal about you. Thank you.

I have called out Everybody Wang Chung a couple of times for his claims that he's a Bishop, because he isn't one. I'm just glad his lie is finally exposed.

He hasn't been "exposed" at all. I believe he is a bishop.

Rollo, you DON'T need the name to turn him in. And even if you got the name, I'm certain you'd do nothing with it.

I don't have any problem with reporting a rogue bishop who violates the Church's confidentiality and records policies.

You are smart enough to know that Dan and his friend didn't do anything wrong ....

Actually, whatever "smarts" I have led me to the conclusion that DCP's bishop buddy ABSOLUTELY violated the Church's "conditions of use" provisions when he agreed to run DCP's personal search for Wang Chung.

... and if anyone did notify church headquarters of this, it would only bring unwanted scrutiny to Mormondiscussions.

How so?

I wonder what they'd think of the pages and pages of attacks on leaders, the members, the doctrine, as well as the years of attacks and harassment against people like Dan Peterson and other LDS scholars?

Well, we already know what they think of DCP because of this forum -- they booted him right out of the Maxwell Institute, along with his minions. I think Church leadership actually appreciates this place for exposing issues that would otherwise embarrass the Church, and even BYU (in the case of the Greg Smith debacle).

While the non-members may not care, it seems to me there are a number of others here who'd like to stay off the church radar.

Not to worry, with helpers like DCP's bishop buddy, we'll all be hunted down eventually.

[_3sheets2thewind]

I can't report it unless DCP gives up the bishop's name, which he assuredly will not do. But, perhaps, as his good friend, he'll give it to you, so please ask him. If you get it, pass it on to me, and I'll take it from there. Thanks in advance.

Of course you can report it. You don't need the Bishop's name. Just call Church Headquarters and tell them what Dan did-you think it's so egregious, then for certain they'll investigate and Dan will have to identify his friend. If you are so sure this was a violation, I don't see why you all refuse to follow through.

But then, Everybody Wang Chung is a Bishop, right? After all, he's been saying he is. That means he can call Salt Lake himself--As a Bishop, it would be easy--he has a direct access number, and he can report what Dan did himself. And since he's the 'injured party', he should be the one to handle it.

As every member of the has the.expectation of privacy of their records, every member is injured when a BYU professor and.bishop collude and misuse Church records.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

No, I need the bishop's name. DCP himself did not violate the "conditions of use." His bishop buddy did. So, Alter Idem, would you be so kind as to try and coax that information out of Dan and pass on to me? Again, thanks in advance.

Rollo, they don't understand this point. They don't understand that several thousand members' private information has been compromised.

Well, they may understand it, but they're circling the wagons.

You're never going to get that name.

I know I'll never get it; I made the offer to reveal their hypocrisy.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

As every member of the [Church] has the expectation of privacy of their records, every member is injured when a BYU professor and bishop collude and misuse Church records.

Perfectly stated. Thanks.

[_MsJack]

I know I'll never get it; I made the offer to reveal their hypocrisy.

Yup. If they really believed this bishop had done nothing wrong, they'd have no qualms about you submitting this complaint. They wouldn't have to posthis name in public; they could PM it to you.

So, I have a question for Alter Idem, stemelbow, Liz, and anyone else who is defending Dan on this matter:

There is a self-styled LDS apologist who used to run a blog and post on blogs under the handle "spamLDS." His real name was Greg West. He was always unbelievably rude to anyone who disagreed with his hyper-conservative brand of Mormonism, quickly branding them anti-Mormon bigots. Most disturbingly, he displayed stalking behavior towards a young, female evangelical blogger, posting her real name on his blog over protests from her and criticizing the accreditation of a degree that she had never publicly mentioned having. At one point he attempted to curse this young woman using his priesthood power.

Mr. West also claimed to be a branch president.

Now, I found it extremely troubling that the church would ever appoint such a man to serve as a leader of others. I thought maybe he was lying about this.

Do you think it would be appropriate for me to approach my husband's bishop and ask him to look up Mr. West and tell me whether or not he really is a branch president? Do you think the bishop would grant my request? Why or why not?

Thanks in advance.

[_Kishkumen]

If I knew who it was, I'd thank him for helping Dan.

This statement says a great deal about you. Thank you.

No kidding. WOW.

What a creep.

[_Kishkumen]

As every member of the [Church] has the expectation of privacy of their records, every member is injured when a BYU professor and bishop collude and misuse Church records.

Perfectly stated. Thanks.

Exactly. It is crystal clear.

[_madeleine]

Here is the evidence-


Text of Dan's post:

Finally, just the other day, I got out a list of all of the people who accompanied me on that tour, and I had a friend who is a bishop cross check it against the Church's leadership directory.

Should I believe this really happened?

[_Kishkumen]

Should I believe this really happened?

I totally sympathize with your desire not to believe such a thing happened, but it did.