Daniel Peterson wrote:It's not much more than a (very) small clipping service. Trust me on this one. There is no spying or covert action. No trappings of "Mission Impossible." No non-Scientologist Tom Cruise.
(meanwhile....)
Daniel Peterson wrote:Suffice it to say that I was once sent out, a number of years ago, as a kind of "agent" of the Strengthening Church Members Committee. My mission? To try to help a member of the Church whose apostasy was threatening his marriage and causing anguish to his very active wife, children, and parents. (The wife and parents, and his stake president, has asked for help.) The weapons of choice? Talking with him for about four hours in Salt Lake City, in the presence of his wife and stake president, and recommending some readings.
Well, I don't know about any of you, but in my view four hours of forced Mormon apologist chit-chat with an ecclesiastical leader and authority as sidekick, all in front of a loved one, sure borders on the Scientological.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Mar 20, 2013 1:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
"As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."
huckelberry wrote:I am baffled. Since when is who is or is not a Bishop confidential information?
It would appear to me to be clearly public information very different than how much tithing you paid or how you handled an interview for temple recommend.
I don't think this is the issue. The issue is whether Church records were illegitimately accessed and put to private use.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
suniluni2 wrote:Wait, so when this guy checks to see that wang was lying about something he posted in public, that's an attack on him from BYU?
Oh don't be obtuse. You asked since when people around here had been interested in whether members adhere to Church rules. I say that they always have been, and you evidently missed it as long as you have been here (however long that is). I was providing my own particular case as an example.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Kishkumen wrote:A number of people here have been interested in whether people live up to their commitments as members, and whether the Church lives up to its own values.
Where have you been?
Whether the Church lives up to its own values is fair game; whether people live up to their commitments as members of the Church is none of anyone else's business. And even if it was your business, does checking if someone was a bishop when they're not supposed to rise to the level of a member not living up to their commitments?
I've been right here, and sometimes the zeal turns to hypocrisy and overreaction, on both sides.
suniluni2 wrote:Wait, so when this guy checks to see that wang was lying about something he posted in public, that's an attack on him from BYU?
Oh don't be obtuse. You asked since when people around here had been interested in whether members adhere to Church rules. I say that they always have been, and you evidently missed it as long as you have been here (however long that is). I was providing my own particular case as an example.
And I simply asked a question about your own particular case. So is the answer yes or no?
edited to add: As you can see, I haven't been around very long. This isn't the Strengthening Members Committee I've been hearing so much about, is it? Making sure members live up to their commitments?
suniluni2 wrote:Whether the Church lives up to its own values is fair game; whether people live up to their commitments as members of the Church is none of anyone else's business.
So Dan had no buisness checking up on Everybody Wang Chung?
suniluni2 wrote:Whether the Church lives up to its own values is fair game; whether people live up to their commitments as members of the Church is none of anyone else's business.
So Dan had no buisness checking up on Everybody Wang Chung?
He can do what he wants. Not sure if what if he did constitutes checking on whether chung is living up to his commitments as a member of the church, if that's what you're implying.
suniluni2 wrote:He can do what he wants. Not sure if what if he did constitutes checking on whether chung is living up to his commitments as a member of the church, if that's what you're implying.
So let me get this straight:
Dan has no ecclesiastical authority over Everybody Wang Chung and he does not have the Church’s permission to access the records that confirm or deny Church membership/Calling. So he enlists the aid of someone else to do something the Church specifically forbids in no uncertain terms. On top of that, the list of names was gathered from a separate and unrelated commercial enterprise from people who probably did not consent to having their names being cross checked with Church database.
None of this sounds unethical to you? It is perfectly acceptable for a person to do what Dan did?
huckelberry wrote:It would appear to me to be clearly public information...
But that is it, it wasn't public information. Look at what the Church Handbook says:
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.
He didn’t flip open the Yellow Pages, he didn’t google someone’s name, or get their tax records. He had a proxy access information that he was not privy to, if he was privy to it, he wouldn’t need a friend to do the search for him.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Mar 20, 2013 2:19 am, edited 1 time in total.