stemelbow wrote:Shiloh wrote:Stem,
Dan may not have broken the rules but his Bishop friend certainly did.
Here is the notice on the site:
Licenses and Restrictions
This site is owned and operated by Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All material found at this site (including visuals, text, icons, displays, databases, and general information) is owned or licensed by us. You may view, download, and print material from this site only for your personal, noncommercial use directly related to your work for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (whether as a volunteer, as part of a Church calling, or as a paid employee of an affiliated legal entity). You may not make available material from this site on any other Web site or on a computer network. You may not use this site or information found at this site for selling or promoting products or services, soliciting clients, or any other commercial purpose. You may not share your sign-on name or password with anyone. Notwithstanding the foregoing, we reserve the sole discretion and right to deny, revoke, or limit use of this site.
Can you help me understand how Dan's Bishop friend cross checking names from a tour of Israel "directly [relates] to [his] work for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"
Shiloh
Please turn him/them in then. Start with tattling on Peterson. My guess is this won't get anywhere.
Very good, David. Your religion has a long and proud history of saying one thing in public, but doing another in private. So yeah, asserting that the LDS Church doesn't really care about the privacy of its members personal information is a great way to make your organization look like the real church of Jesus of Nazareth, rather than a vacuous corporate bureaucracy full of empty promises. Let it not be said that the Mormontologist obsession with insular navel gazing has any bearing on how seriously the outside world can be expected to take this religion. Isn't it wonderful? Isn't it marvelous?
No one will take it seriously? Why? because no information was taken from the directory at all.
That's so not relevant at all to the issue.
The spirit of the rule is clearly to not use the information for marketing or political purposes or some other such thing. It has nothing to do with whether one can check up on someone whose boasting about things on the internet while attacking people. Indeed, many would see this as a good thing rather than a bad thing.
No. You are hopelessly wrong. The statement you are talking about is a legal document, and the fact that it is on a computer screen instead of paper is not relevant to its status as a legal "document." It is an end user license agreement. License agreements are a type of contract, which are interpreted according to the plain meaning of the language used. It is only if there is some ambiguity in the language---which is not present here---that evidence extraneous to the words of the agreement comes in to determine the intent of the parties. And you have no evidence whatsoever to support your naked, self-serving assertion that the "spirit" of this license agreement allows a non-bishop to try to track down an anonymous nobody over a personal grudge about message board posts. Let's look at what the Utah Supreme Court says about interpreting a contract, since the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Utah corporation sole:
Central Florida Investments, Inc. v. Parkwest Assoc., 2002 UT 3¶12 In interpreting a contract, the intentions of the parties are controlling. Dixon v. Pro Image, Inc., 1999 UT 89, ¶ 13, 987 P.2d 48 (quotation omitted). "[W]e first look to the four corners of the agreement to determine the intentions of the parties." Ron Case Roofing & Asphalt v. Blomquist, 773 P.2d 1382, 1385 (Utah 1989); see also Reed v. Davis Co. Sch. Dist., 892 P.2d 1063, 1064-1065 (Utah Ct. App. 1995). If the language within the four corners of the contract is unambiguous, the parties intentions are determined from the plain meaning of the contractual language, and the contract may be interpreted as a matter of law. Dixon, 1999 UT 89 at ¶ 14, 987 P.2d 48 (citing Willard Pease Oil & Gas Co. v. Pioneer Oil & Gas Co., 899 P.2d 766, 770 (Utah 1995)). If the language within the four corners of the contract is ambiguous, however, extrinsic evidence must be looked to in order to determine the intentions of the parties. Id. In evaluating whether the plain language is ambiguous, we attempt to harmonize all of the contract's provisions and all of its terms. Id.; see also Buehner Block Co. v. UWC Assocs., 752 P.2d 892, 895 (Utah 1988). "An ambiguity exists where the language 'is reasonably capable of being understood in more than one sense.'" Dixon, 1999 UT 89 at ¶ 14, 987 P.2d 48 (quoting R & R Energies v. Mother Earth Indus., Inc., 936 P.2d 1068, 1074 (Utah 1997) (further quotation omitted)). Accordingly, we first look to the plain language within the four corners of the agreement to determine the intentions of the parties, and we attempt to harmonize the provisions in the pre-printed and addendum portions of the agreement. There is nothing ambiguous about the following words:
You may view, download, and print material from this site only for your personal, noncommercial use directly related to your work for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (whether as a volunteer, as part of a Church calling, or as a paid employee of an affiliated legal entity).
According to Peterson's brazen statements on a public message board, he had a current bishop access data that belongs to the Church---THE CHRUCH'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY---for the purpose of satisfying Peterson's obsessive need to get parity of personal information about some anonymous nobody who says on some message board that his interpretation of Mormonism is different than Peterson's. Not only did this bishop (assuming without proof that Peterson's account is accurate) violate the Church's property rights, he violated the privacy of every person on that list Peterson asked him to cross-check.
So guess what, David? If you assert that Daniel Peterson's personal grudges against anonymous internet users are an official church purpose, and one of those people decides his privacy was invaded by an agent of the Church (a bishop) acting within the scope of his employment, guess who gets sued? I'll give you a hint: it rhymes with "Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
Your little cult of personality is so myopic that you hapless lapdogs have been going on for pages and pages about how wonderful it is to “F” the Church (by invading its property rights and potentially subjecting it to liability) to satisfy Daniel Peterson's personal vendettas. Why don't you just stop calling yourself "LDS" right now, and admit that you, Liz, and Alter Idem are members of the Church of Daniel Peterson?
EDIT: fixed a typo
