Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_stemelbow
_Emeritus
Posts: 5872
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologet

Post by _stemelbow »

So he broke the "letter of the law" but they won't care.
Good to know the church doesn't care about keeping allegedly confidential information private or about following their own guidelines.


Sheesh. Another twisting of words. The church surely cares. But since absolutely no confidential information was released, there's really no reason to conclude as you have.
Love ya tons,
Stem


I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Re: Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologet

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

stemelbow wrote:
RockSlider wrote:As I repeated, over and over ... this has nothing to do with Everybody Wang Chung, it has to do with the reason the DB was accessed for in the first place.

And you and Rollo claim the reason he accessed it was for what? I am saying what DCP is saying--he knew Everybody Wang Chung was lying so he asked it to be accessed to confirm.

Even if that were true (which I don't think it is), then the bishop friend violated the "conditions of use" when he accessed the directory to answer DCP's question.

I'm not denying that there was a letter of the law violation here.

FINALLY! A statement that makes sense!

I'm merely saying when taken in front of a court of the Church the case will be laughed out of there.

DCP doesn't think so -- in an earlier comment on his blog today (or maybe yesterday), DCP stated that the misuse of Church records would be grounds for a Church disciplinary action.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
_stemelbow
_Emeritus
Posts: 5872
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologet

Post by _stemelbow »

RockSlider wrote:Sure, please verify with Dan that it is indeed Greg Smith that we should be turning in so that there is no speculation.


You just want to incriminate someone huh? I"m just like you. I can't get his name anymore than you. You'll have to turn in Dan who then under church pressure will ahve to give the name.

I'm sure Dan wants no part in this, but since you insist this was reason to oust the guy then go ahead.
Love ya tons,
Stem


I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
_Alter Idem
_Emeritus
Posts: 784
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologet

Post by _Alter Idem »

I apologize for being unclear. I meant "attempt" in the sense that it didn't matter if the bishop actually found anything or that Wang Chung was unmasked. It was the bishop's actual access of the directory based on DCP's request for information about Wang Chung, that violated the Church's "conditions of use."


But this is not what happened.

Dan knew that Everybody Wang Chung claimed to be a Bishop and claimed he'd gone on a certain tour with him.
Dan did not try to identify Everybody Wang Chung (for which the directory would have been useless anyway) he determined to see if four men who'd attended his tour were Bishops at the time. There is NOTHING wrong with that.
He asked his friend to check on the names to see if any of them were serving as Bishops at the time Everybody Wang Chung claimed he'd gone on the tour.

His friend did not allow him access, but looked it up himself. He then told him 'no'; none of the names he'd given him were serving as Bishops at the time.

This was not a violation of the 'conditions of use' since part of the reason for the directory is to be able to check on someone who claims to be a Bishop, when others are pretty certain that person is NOT.

Bishops are allowed to access the directory if they determine a request is appropriate. Dan's friend did that and no one's privacy was violated in doing so.

The directory was NOT misused.
Every man is a moon and has a [dark] side which he turns toward nobody; you have to slip around behind if you want to see it. ---Mark Twain
_Stormy Waters

Re: Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologet

Post by _Stormy Waters »

stemelbow wrote:Sheesh. Another twisting of words. The church surely cares. But since absolutely no confidential information was released, there's really no reason to conclude as you have.


Because obviously failure is absolution.
_stemelbow
_Emeritus
Posts: 5872
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologet

Post by _stemelbow »

Rollo Tomasi wrote:DCP doesn't think so -- in an earlier comment on his blog today (or maybe yesterday), DCP stated that the misuse of Church records would be grounds for a Church disciplinary action.


Then you have every reason in the world to pursue your case. Stop playing around and do something Rollo. Please.

It's laughable you guys are still so worked up about this. Get over yourselves already. No one will take seriously an effort to show a liar to be a liar. That's just silly.
Love ya tons,
Stem


I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
_Darth J
_Emeritus
Posts: 13392
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:16 am

Re: Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologet

Post by _Darth J »

Alter Idem wrote:This was not a violation of the 'conditions of use' since part of the reason for the directory is to be able to check on someone who claims to be a Bishop, when others are pretty certain that person is NOT.

Bishops are allowed to access the directory if they determine a request is appropriate. Dan's friend did that and no one's privacy was violated in doing so.


Please copy and paste the language from the license agreement that supports these assertions.
_Darth J
_Emeritus
Posts: 13392
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:16 am

Re: Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologet

Post by _Darth J »

stemelbow wrote:I'm not denying that there was a letter of the law violation here.


There is nothing else that is relevant. The letter of the law is the law. The license agreement is a legal document. The end.
_stemelbow
_Emeritus
Posts: 5872
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologet

Post by _stemelbow »

Stormy Waters wrote:Because obviously failure is absolution.


Dan knew these people to some extent right?

Does ti matter if he knew they were actually serving as bishops or not? Is that really private information?

You simply have no reason to get worked up here. Let it go, folks. Stop the hate.

If you had something you'd have done something, considering the amount of hate there is here.
Love ya tons,
Stem


I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
_stemelbow
_Emeritus
Posts: 5872
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologet

Post by _stemelbow »

Darth J wrote:There is nothing else that is relevant. The letter of the law is the law. The license agreement is a legal document. The end.


Great. Then do something. Oh, you can't? Oh, there's nothing to do? Then stop pouting.
Love ya tons,
Stem


I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Post Reply