Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

[_Stormy Waters]

The directory was NOT misused.

Again, thank you for confirmation that church databases are used in this way. I've wondered and now I know.

[_Darth J]

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.

And with these truisms in mind, the reason you keep posting in this thread in attempt to vindicate Peterson's actions is __________________________________.

[_Darth J]

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.

Stemelbow, what is your factual basis for assuming:

--I am not doing anything;

--I have not already done something

?

[_Alter Idem]

Great. So are you guys ready to turn him in? I'm not denying that there was a letter of the law violation here. I'm merely saying when taken in front of a court of the Church the case will be laughed out of there.

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.

No, he didn't break the 'letter of the law' either.

The directory was accessed for a reasonable request and no one's privacy was violated. The church is very careful about confidential, private records. This was a record of who is serving as a Bishop--nothing more--no phone numbers or addresses were given out, Dan wasn't even allowed to look himself--there was NO violation of confidential information.

It is a directory of Bishops which can be accessed by a Bishop, at the request of a member.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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.

BS. If the bishop friend had found that one of the guys on the list was a current bishop, then he most certainly would have informed DCP. And the directory was not "useless" on this point.

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.

The bishop's accessing the directory for this purpose (i.e., a private request by DCP) ABSOLUTELY violated the "conditions of use."

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.

Which is precisely why the bishop friend VIOLATED the "conditions of use."

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.

More BS. Accessing the leadership directory based on the personal request by someone who does not have access, violates the "conditions of use."

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.

NO!!! The "conditions of use" set out very clearly what is appropriate, and there is no way a reasonably sane bishop would think that Dan's personal request was a legitimate "condition of use."

The directory was NOT misused.

It absolutely WAS misused. Your worship of DCP has blinded you.

[_MrStakhanovite]

he determined to see if four men who'd attended his tour were Bishops at the time. There is NOTHING wrong with that.

From the Church itself:

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

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

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.

Knowing four men are not listed on the database is information gleaned from the database. That information in the form of "no" was given to a person who is not authorized to have such information. This was not done at the behest of the Church, but was clearly for private purposes.

Thank you in keeping this thread bumped near the top and allowing us to drive this point home over and over again.

[_stemelbow]

Stemelbow, what is your factual basis for assuming:

--I am not doing anything;

--I have not already done something

?

Mostly because you are all talk--talking on a board that is full of folks who support your absurdities.

Do not fret, angry dude. The truth will set you free at some point. I hope that it comes sooner rather than later for your sakes.

[_Darth J]

No, he didn't break the 'letter of the law' either.

The directory was accessed for a reasonable request and no one's privacy was violated. The church is very careful about confidential, private records. This was a record of who is serving as a Bishop--nothing more--no phone numbers or addresses were given out, Dan wasn't even allowed to look himself--there was NO violation of confidential information.

Please copy and paste the language of the license agreement permitting a "reasonable request" regarding a personal curiosity about an anonymous message board poster that has nothing to do with official LDS Church business.

[_Darth J]

Stemelbow, what is your factual basis for assuming:

--I am not doing anything;

--I have not already done something

?

Mostly because you are all talk--talking on a board that is full of folks who support your absurdities.

Do not fret, angry dude. The truth will set you free at some point. I hope that it comes sooner rather than later for your sakes.

Thank you for conceding that you don't have the slightest idea what I have done about this, am doing about this, or will do about this.

[_Stormy Waters]

The directory was accessed for a reasonable request and no one's privacy was violated. The church is very careful about confidential, private records. This was a record of who is serving as a Bishop--nothing more--no phone numbers or addresses were given out, Dan wasn't even allowed to look himself--there was NO violation of confidential information.

There is no way in hell that if a bishops name had appeared on that list they wouldn't have followed through. They no doubt would have felt an 'obligation' to report Everybody Wang Chung to church authorities and to do that they would have needed confirmation.
Stop posturing just because the search failed to get the desired results.

But all of that is besides the point of this thread.