Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

[_hobo1512]

Oh, dear. It seems that your ad hoc excuse making has contradicted itself again.

Your reasoning for one anonymous bishop being justified in accessing confidential member records is that it is "official Church bishop" to evaluate the online conduct of other members of the Church.

That being your reasoning, Everybody Wang Chung, as a bishop, would be justified in commenting on how Daniel Peterson's conduct was inconsistent with the behavior expected of members of the Church. Because bishops are entitled to police LDS members at large.

Oh, dear. It seems that your reading comprehension is slipping. I said that bishops were allowed to use Church records to report conduct of other bishops.

Liz, please address my question on page 25.

I really, really, really, want to hear your take on it.

Oh, and by the way, Jesus died on the cross 2000 years ago, so you can climb down from yours, OK?

[_lulu]

It died or was it deleted? Do you have a link to it?

You have to have a reccommend to view the board.

Who issues the reccommend is not clear.

[_3sheets2thewind]

Oh, dear. It seems that your reading comprehension is slipping. I said that bishops were allowed to use Church records to report conduct of other bishops.

Wait I thought Dan posted that he only wanted to know if a Bishop was on the tour.

Just think if some poor sap of a Bishop was on the tour?

[_3sheets2thewind]

It died or was it deleted? Do you have a link to it?

You have to have a reccommend to view the board.

Who issues the reccommend is not clear.

I suppose this is the post:

escott3564

Newbie: Without form, and void
Members
Pip
27 posts

Posted A week ago
Since this is a thread dedicated to Dan, based on recent events, he might appreciate this little starter thread OP of mine from his favorite board:

Quote
OK, folks. Everyone has been so interested in catching Dan's hand in the cookie jar that I am going to ask a question regarding another overlooked elephant in the room.

All of you are convinced, from what has been posted here, that Dan did, indeed, obtain correct information regarding bishops attending the cruise to Israel. Obviously, if this information wasn't correct, then Dan's bishop friend didn't actually violate anything.

So, given that the information Dan obtained is correct....Everybody Wang Chung was lying.

He was lying about going on the trip, being a bishop, or both.


Liz is due to be lambasted in 5...4...3...2... :help:

Stem, maybe you and I can hold hands over there? :air_kiss:

[_Alter Idem]

Alter,

What is your view on the potential breach of trust between the tour company/leaders and their customers?
What I mean is, putting Everybody Wang Chung to one side for a moment, do the customers on that tour realise that they have had their Church records checked by someone who has no ecclesiastical authority or jurisdiction over them, simply because they happened to be on that tour and might be people who post things on a message board?

I see no problem with 'breach of trust' between the tour co. and their customers. There is no understanding that a person signed up to go on a tour won't be 'checked on' in some way by those involved in the tour.

Another mistake is thinking that church records were checked by someone with no ecclesiastical authority--first, no member records were checked. This was a directory of presently serving Bishops. And the Bishop who checked it had the authority to do so, no 'jurisdiction' is necessary either.

Liz: 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.

I think this may be something that people here are misunderstanding. What's causing some disagreement is that the directory is not to be accessed for 'personal' reasons. But Dan's request was for something that was happening on a public message board and involved a supposedly ecclesiastical authority in the church who was not acting like one--this had the potential for involving and affecting more people--so I can see his reasons for wanting to find out if there was any truth to Everybody Wang Chung's claims. As a former Bishop, Dan had every right to be concerned about Everybody Wang Chung and his antics and when he told his friend (also a Bishop) about the situation, he felt Dan's request was warranted.

This is why I'm telling you all that there was no violation.

[_Kishkumen]

So you acknowledge that Daniel was trying to discover Everybody Wang Chung's identity.

Well, that's a new story, I'll give you that.

[_beastie]

Sometimes I wonder if LDS know it's not normal to spy and tattle. There's a serious problem with boundaries in the LDS church.

[_Alter Idem]

Is that within the scope of a bishop's job presiding over his ward?

Where can I confirm that it is part of a bishop's job to undertake his own anonymous investigation of such a claim, rather than reporting it to the Church?

Liz, if a bishop is entitled to access confidential member records to investigate anyone who claims to be a bishop, irrespective of any priesthood authority over that person, how is the bishop not entitled to investigate any member of the Church anywhere? And exactly why would the LDS Church impose its own standard of confidentiality, and impose a legal, revocable license agreement for access to that data, if it is perfectly fine for LDS bishops to be de facto ecclesiastical vigilantes?

As a side note, as much as I appreciate your Freudian slip, Everybody Wang Chung was making a mockery of Daniel Peterson, not "the Church." You have made it very clear that the distinction is very unclear for you, but I wanted to point it out nonetheless.

I'm not sure you are sincere in your questions or if you are just hassling Liz, but I'm going to try again.

NO confidential records were accessed. Member records are not what Dan's friend viewed. He viewed a directory of presently serving Bishops which is only accessible to Bishops. Member records cannot be viewed by other Bishops--EWC or those four men were not in danger of anyone looking at their confidential church membership records.


Any Bishop who is concerned about a person who may be lying publicly on message boards, claiming to be a Bishop, but acting in a way that would be inappropriate for a Bishop and possibly misleading people, would be within his rights to check it out. He owes it to the church to look out for its well-being.


Now Darth, I've explained it clearly so if you keep going on about private confidential membership records being accessed by Dan's friend, I'm going to assume you aren't really interested in the truth and your just trying to fan flames against Dan.

[_Alter Idem]

Sometimes I wonder if LDS know it's not normal to spy and tattle. There's a serious problem with boundaries in the LDS church.

one person's tattletale is another's whistleblower.

I don't expect you to understand but, impersonating Bishops isn't something to laugh off.

[_Kishkumen]

Sometimes I wonder if LDS know it's not normal to spy and tattle. There's a serious problem with boundaries in the LDS church.

So true.

Daniel's deep concern, nay, anxiety that someone might be mocking his religion is a persistent theme. In this instance, he mentioned how much it bugged him that Everybody Wang Chung might be silently mocking him while he bore his testimony. As though that doesn't happen to everyone now and then in the average fast & testimony meeting.