Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

[_stemelbow]

Face it, DCP has zero credibility here.

i think that sums up the dramatic posturing here.

Some will say, in their moments of weakness anyway, Dan has some credibility and they will even try to say nice things to somehow appear fair or thoughtful, but when it comes down to it, Rollo speaks the truth. No one takes thoughtfulness seriously here. IT's all about demonizing someone, or some folks.

...almost like it's a sport that is making people feel strong and proud.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Wrong again. If anyone (including myself) violated the Church's "conditions of use" to unmask an anonymous poster that he or she didn't like, then the attitude would be the same (and perhaps more harsh, because DCP's involvement in something like this, frankly, is not all that surprising).

I think the point you're missing is there was no unmasking.

True, but the "attempt" to unmask was enough to violate the "conditions of use."

True, if Dan had unmasked anyone, inquired about whether someone really should be a bishop based on suspicion he is Everybody Wang Chung and all that, there might be a problem here. Instead none of that came about. Dan and others knew Everybody Wang Chung was lying. Nothing was compromised, as I see itd. The only thing you can hang your hope on here is the hypothetical of if there really was a bishop in the group. To you if there was, Dan would have unmasked him for us all, and gone after him or something.

I agree that it would have been worse had DCP obtained in real life information about Wang Church and spread it around, but, again, the bishop friend's mere accessing of the directory based solely on DCP's request, was an absolute VIOLATION of the directory's "conditions of use." That is the issue.

In truth though, Stak did suggest he doesn't care if the bishop friend or DCP are disciplined in some way. he merely thinks Dan did something naughty and wants others to know DCP did something naughty. Not until yesterday did he acknowledge Everybody Wang Chung did somethign wrong, but even then he seems far more delighted that Dan did something wrong in order to make it an issue, than he cares the anyone here ever does a thing wrong. Why? Well, Dan he hates, and others here he simply doesn't care for.

I have no evidence that Wang Chung did anything wrong (and I don't think anyone else here does, either). DCP's "naughty" led not only to his bishop friend blatantly violating the "conditions of use," but the INTENT behind DCP's request (i.e., gather in real life information about Wang Chung) makes this a very serious issue for every poster here who wishes to remain anonymous. This is not about getting back at Dan, but at any nefarious scheme intended to unmask an anonymous poster here. Dan just happened to be the stupid one who tried it and then admitted to it.

[_lulu]

Let me state for the moment that I have read on several threads here that many posters here felt that Everybody Wang Chung had, in fact, lied, and that they had been played.

However, my active posting days here are over.

I'm feeling played.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Going from memory, the agreement states that a bishop, or other Church officer who has rightful access to the record, can access that record for Church related business.

Liz, do you honestly believe that DCP's personal request to his bishop friend to access a Church document (which is not accessible to anyone (including Dan!) other than bishops and above) to uncover the identity of one of his customers, with whom DCP also clashes on this bb, was "Church related business"? Geesh, Liz, what has happened to you???

[_Darth J]

How do we know Everybody Wang Chung lied, Liz?

I don't really have time to post mine, Darth.

If I get a chance, I will. Let me state for the moment that I have read on several threads here that many posters here felt that Everybody Wang Chung had, in fact, lied, and that they had been played. They were also very good natured about the fact that they were played.

That is not responsive to the question. Tell me how anyone would know that Everybody Wang Chung lied on a basis other than, "because I took Peterson's claim at face value."

Also, will you please copy and paste the language from the LDS Church's license agreement that says a bishop can access confidential church records if a third party asks him to because the third party believes someone is lying regarding a private dispute on an internet message board? Thanks in advance.

I believe that you have actually copy/pasted that agreement here several times. Do it yourself.

Going from memory, the agreement states that a bishop, or other Church officer who has rightful access to the record, can access that record for Church related business.

Where everyone here has disagreed with is what constitutes Church business.

As a bishop, if Dan's friend was made aware that a member if the Church had been misrepresenting himself as a bishop on a public forum, and in so doing was making a mockery of that sacred office, that bishop may have very well felt justified in looking up some information in a database he has full rights to access to look into this.

From his standpoint, he is using the records as they can rightfully be used.

Is this a subjective call? Of course it is! 99% of what Church leaders do is based on their subjectivity.

How long have you been a member of the Church, Darth? You're a smart guy. I thought you would certainly be aware of that.

Sorry, Liz, but being or not being LDS is totally irrelevant to the issue. The license agreement is a legal document. It is interpreted by an objective standard, that being the plain language it uses. There is nothing ambiguous about what official LDS church business means. If the LDS Church intended its bishops to rely on their subjective interests in accessing confidential member records, there would be no reason to have a revocable, limited license agreement. Nor would the Church have a department at church headquarters for this specific concern. Cross-checking a list of names from a third party commercial entity with confidential LDS member records to satisfy the personal anxieties of Daniel Peterson is not within the scope of the bishop's role. This anonymous bishop has no ecclesiastical jurisdiction over any of the people involved.

If it is the province of an LDS bishop to investigate members at large, including those over whom he does not preside, to see if their behavior is in conformity with what that bishop feels are proper LDS standards, than the existence of the license agreement and an enforcement office are nonsensical.

No serious person above a second-grade reading level would even consider your hand waving, Liz. Your attempted explanation is ludicrous on its face.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Face it, DCP has zero credibility here.

i think that sums up the dramatic posturing here.

Some will say, in their moments of weakness anyway, Dan has some credibility and they will even try to say nice things to somehow appear fair or thoughtful, but when it comes down to it, Rollo speaks the truth. No one takes thoughtfulness seriously here. IT's all about demonizing someone, or some folks.

...almost like it's a sport that is making people feel strong and proud.

Stem, why do you think Dan has stopped posting here? It's not "posturing," it's just reality.

[_stemelbow]

True, but the "attempt" to unmask was enough to violate the "conditions of use."

There was no attempt to unmask at all.

I agree that it would have been worse had DCP obtained in real life information about Wang Church and spread it around, but, again, the bishop friend's mere accessing of the directory based solely on DCP's request, was an absolute VIOLATION of the directory's "conditions of use." That is the issue.

Then you're off-topic, i guess. Stak's thread here is saying Dan broke rules. Dan violated the conditions of use. Not his bishop friend. But again, it's up the the people who have authority concerning the conditions of use to decide. If ya have something, like you've been claiming, then turn them in.

I have no evidence that Wang Chung did anything wrong (and I don't think anyone else here does, either). DCP's "naughty" led not only to his bishop friend blatantly violating the "conditions of use," but the INTENT behind DCP's request (i.e., gather in real life information about Wang Chung) makes this a very serious issue for every poster here who wishes to remain anonymous. This is not about getting back at Dan, but at any nefarious scheme intended to unmask an anonymous poster here. Dan just happened to be the stupid one who tried it and then admitted to it.

uh...no one's anonymity has been compromised at all. You are over-reacting if that is truly your point. Are you seriously afraid someone will find out who you are and then will do something about it?

If so, don't go boasting about things that aren't true. No one will be suspicious of you and no one will find reason to prove you a fraud. Simple, right?

[_Yoda]

Let me state for the moment that I have read on several threads here that many posters here felt that Everybody Wang Chung had, in fact, lied, and that they had been played.

However, my active posting days here are over.

I'm feeling played.

Care to address what I posted on the actual topic, or are you just content following me around and harassing me?

I'll be more than happy to walk you through how to use the ignore feature if my posts are really that troublesome to you.

[_stemelbow]

Stem, why do you think Dan has stopped posting here? It's not "posturing," it's just reality.

We had a conversation about it. He advised me to stop too.

He suggested, essentially, people here won't listen. They simply have no interest in discussing truth, per se, but throwing fits about certain LDS folks. When LDS folks who are defenders, if you will, respond with their thoughts, the replies aren't really about the thoughts, per se, but about the LDS person. There is very little open, thoughtful discussion to be had here. When it's attempted, a gang of folks seem to ruin it before it gets started.

[_Darth J]

Face it, DCP has zero credibility here.

i think that sums up the dramatic posturing here.

Stemelbow has been brought to you today by the number 3, the letter L, and the fallacy of equivocation ("here")!