Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

[_Bazooka]

Two pages before, (http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 95#p695795) I wrote that DCP was unethical as tour manager - he has sniffed after a client personality. And this has nothing to do with churches, bishops or Mormonism.

I would disable his certificate to make tours - if there is such thing in the country of unlimited opportunities...

Ludwig,

ldsfaqs is like a particularly blunt nail, you have to hit him very hard, repeatedly, to try and force the point home...

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

The only way Mr. Faqs can accept a point is if he already believes in it.

- Doc

[_Rollo Tomasi]

You're being intentionally obtuse. It is crystal clear that DCP's bishop friend violated the written "conditions of use" when that bishop accessed the Church leadership directory to find information requested by DCP. What the bishop found or did not find, is NOT the issue -- it was the bishop's accessing the directory at the request of DCP.

It is only "crystal clear" in minds that are "warped" by hate, bigotry, intolerance toward things and people of light.
Darkness clouds your judgment. This is KEY to where you people fail.

Geesh, none of this has anything to do with "hate" or "bigotry" or "intolerance" or "people of light." It has everything to do with the Church's own written "conditions of use" to access and peruse the Church leadership directory. Your denying all this only serves to put you in opposition to the Church's written and explicit policies and rules concerning the confidentiality and use of records.

I on the other hand have no unrighteous and false judgments toward the Church and it's members, and so I see it for what it actually is, and it's "crystal clear" that the OPPOSITE of your claim occurred.

Then you are blind, because your posts here have revealed your opposition to the Church's written "conditions of use" to access the Church's leadership directory.

If an actual "wrong" occurred, I would be critical of it, but since it didn't, I'm not.

Under your standard, whether a "wrong occurred" depends on the identity of the wrong-doer. If DCP did it, then it was automatically the "right" thing; in other words, when it comes to DCP, the substance of the action doesn't matter one bit.

I gave an "example" of the events of what had to occur if an actual wrong had occurred in this situation, but you people ignore it. You chose your bigotry and strawmen over truth and right.

Your arguments are without merit. Your blind faith (bordering on worship) in DCP says it all.

Here's how you can know with a surety that DCP did something wrong -- DCP himself. Other than his odd 3rd-person statement of what occurred (posted on Liz's private board), DCP has not said anything about any of this. He's been conspicuously SILENT! This tells me that DCP himself knows he screwed up, and that he feels bad about getting his bishop friend mixed up in this (who probably is facing more serious consequences than DCP). IF DCP really did nothing wrong, do you think he'd be so quiet about this? You know he wouldn't. Sorry, ldsfaqs, but you're on a sinking ship when it comes to this latest DCP debacle.

[_Kishkumen]

The Cult of Dan is truly an amazing thing. Such devotion as ldsfrags' is not easy to come by.

I may not envy Daniel his besotted, fanatical followers, but I do marvel at their existence.

[_ludwigm]

The Cult of Dan
...
I do marvel at their existence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxxWhvGUrYg

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/61047878

[_sunstoned]

I am no fan of the modus operandi of DCP and his gaggle. I have seen him use his position and power to hurt a lot of people, and that doesn’t sit well with me. So watching this classic what-goes-around-comes-around scenario play out over at the Maxwell Institute has gone a long way to restore my faith in cosmic rightness of the universe. But now, it has gone beyond this, and I am at a place where I now feel sorry (pity?) for Dan. In fact, I am a little afraid for him. His continued lashing out in such a vocal and unprofessional way is hurting his career. I am sure of it. His latest Blog post has really crossed the line in my opinion. I teach at a University, and know a little about the politics that can go on. By speaking this way about BYU, Dan is giving his critics all the more reason to marginalize him, or worse. He could lose his job over all of this. And that really would be a tragedy. I don’t wish that on anyone.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

One thing I have found particularly interesting in all of this is DCP's very conspicuous silence on the controversy (other than the 3rd person statement he posted on Liz's private blog). That is, until now. I noticed today that on DCP's personal blog a comment was posted in response to DCP's entry of his reaction to the recent changes at MI. Here is the comment by one "John Smith":

A professor and a bishop conspire to access church records, and you complain about secret agenda’s and meetings?

This is an obvious reference to the topic of this thread: DCP's using his bishop friend to access the Church's leadership directory in an effort to unmask Wang Chung.

What I found very interesting was Dan's response to this comment:

If a professor and a bishop have done that, they should be roundly condemned and, in my judgment at least, brought up for Church discipline.

I’m assuming that you have a specific case in mind. If you do, and if you know their identities, I hope you’ll report them.

Thus, Dan has endorsed "condemnation" and "Church discipline" for a professor, such as Dan, and a bishop, such as Dan's bishop friend, who inappropriately access Church records. It's crystal clear that Dan and his bishop friend did precisely this, based on Dan's own admissions. Does this mean that Dan is begging to be turned in, perhaps as part of the repentance process? Who knows, but I certainly found this latest statement from Dan very interesting, indeed.

[_RockSlider]

If a professor and a bishop have done that, they should be roundly condemned and, in my judgment at least, brought up for Church discipline.

I’m assuming that you have a specific case in mind. If you do, and if you know their identities, I hope you’ll report them.

Well, on Liz's board I was taunted by Dan's cheer leaders and Dan to report him. They were sure that that would somehow make a fool out of me. I felt there was in real life possible harm for Dan and/or his buddy and so would not act on their taunts. Thus I proposed to write up a nameless scenario changing the basic story somewhat, which I did and posted for their approval/modification.

I was then going to send two questions to the privacy department of the church; 1. would this scenario be a violation of policy? 2. what would be the punishment for such a violation be?

I proposed to send this off in an email with Liz copied and to then have Liz report the answers.

Dan immediately posted a response somewhat similar to: "do what you must quickly". Of course comparing what I was doing to Judas being a traitor to Jesus.

I took this to mean that Dan was indeed worried about this and that I would be pulling the ultimate betrayal if I was to send it (which I dropped at this point)

It's amazing that he is now taunting the public to again turn him and Greg, um I mean his buddy in.

Crazy crap

[_Yoda]

Thus, Dan has endorsed "condemnation" and "Church discipline" for a professor, such as Dan, and a bishop, such as Dan's bishop friend, who inappropriately access Church records. It's crystal clear that Dan and his bishop friend did precisely this, based on Dan's own admissions. Does this mean that Dan is begging to be turned in, perhaps as part of the repentance process? Who knows, but I certainly found this latest statement from Dan very interesting, indeed.

I didn't read it that way. I don't think that Dan believes he did anything to "repent" of. It reads to me like he is challenging "John Smith" with his comments...that he is aware of exactly which case he is referring to, and is basically spelling out that if Mr. Smith reports these actions, upon Church leadership hearing the full story, not only will no action be taken, but it will be Mr. Smith, and any other folks who agreed with him, who will look foolish.

[_RockSlider]

I didn't read it that way. I don't think that Dan believes he did anything to "repent" of. It reads to me like he is challenging "John Smith" with his comments...that he is aware of exactly which case he is referring to, and is basically spelling out that if Mr. Smith reports these actions, upon Church leadership hearing the full story, not only will no action be taken, but it will be Mr. Smith, and any other folks who agreed with him, who will look foolish.

This is exactly what you guys said about me.

So why was Dan accusing me of being a Judas when it came right down to me sending in that scenario and seeing who was going to look foolish?