Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

[_hobo1512]

Stem, let me ask you a question that Liz, Harmony, and a couple others have yet to answer.

If I ask my friend who is a branch manger of your bank to access your accounts because I want him to, is that OK?

uh...serious? You are equating this to accessing someone's bank account? Well I'll answer no here. It's not okay.

If I ask him if you've ever been overdrawn, is that OK?

It's okay with me, personally. But generally I'd say no.

If I ask him about your personal information, is that OK?

no

If it is wrong, how is it wrong as opposed to what Peterson did?

No private or personal information was used, passed on, or really accessed.

Should the branch manager be punished? Why shouldn't Peterson be punished?

By all means, turn in Peterson and get him punished if ya like. I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished. Where's the whip?

Should I be punished? Why shouldn't the bishop be punished?

Who says that you nor the bishop should not be punished?

Punish one, punish all. Seriously we're all punished for our deeds to some extend. Should the bishop lose his calling? uh...that wouldn't be a punishment at all, but that's not really my call. hmmm...I say yes. he should be released and then castrated.

Sound fair to you?

It's a perfectly good analogy. Someone without access to information asking a 3rd party to access information for him.

If it is wrong for one, it is wrong for both, no matter what the information.

You made a comment about personal information not being accessed. Isn't a person's name personal information?

He gave a list of names to someone to look up in your church's computer system. That is accessing personal information.

John Doe, Jim Doe, and Bill Doe are all on Peterson's list. His buddy looks each one up to see if they are a bishop. He is accessing each individuals record and seeing information about them, including whether or not they are a bishop.

Even if he just looked at some sort of list that showed just bishops names, Peterson is getting information about individuals that he is not entitled to. If I call the same bishop and ask him if Frank Doe is a bishop, do you think he's going to do the same for me? How about the random pew sitting Mormon?

Why didn't he just call the individuals on the list and ask? Instead, he sneaks and peaks.

[_Ceeboo]

What's the difference between a porcupine and a Porsche?

On a porcupine, the pricks are on the outside.


Peace,
Ceeboo

[_stemelbow]

It's a perfectly good analogy. Someone without access to information asking a 3rd party to access information for him.

Can we just disagree on this without all the drama that ensues when someone disagrees 'round here? The kind of data is important, I would suggest.

You are trying to equate the idea that asking someone if another person is a bishop to asking someone to provide someone's bank account information. I think that's an absurdity. You think it logical and fine. I just plain disagree with you.

If it is wrong for one, it is wrong for both, no matter what the information.

Degree of wrongness would also have to be a factor as it relates to different types of data, in my opinion. Disagree with you again.

You made a comment about personal information not being accessed. Isn't a person's name personal information?

What person's name? The name of the person that Dan already had?

He gave a list of names to someone to look up in your church's computer system. That is accessing personal information.

Great. We agree. Something was accessed. Was anyone's name derived from the directory? nope.

John Doe, Jim Doe, and Bill Doe are all on Peterson's list. His buddy looks each one up to see if they are a bishop. He is accessing each individuals record and seeing information about them, including whether or not they are a bishop.

no. That's not what happened.

Even if he just looked at some sort of list that showed just bishops names, Peterson is getting information about individuals that he is not entitled to. If I call the same bishop and ask him if Frank Doe is a bishop, do you think he's going to do the same for me? How about the random pew sitting Mormon?

Beats me. I can't help the Dan's bishop friend trusted Dan and others may not trust you.

Why didn't he just call the individuals on the list and ask? Instead, he sneaks and peaks.

Easier for him. I suppose he could have called, provided he had contact information for them. Why does it matter to you? Was anyone's personal information given to Dan? Did the bishop friend discover some private information about anyone? It doesn't appear so.

Thanks again for the questions.

[_stemelbow]

What's the difference between a porcupine and a Porsche?

On a porcupine, the pricks are on the outside.


Peace,
Ceeboo

That's the only difference you can think of? my late dog, Sandy, used to come home with porcupine quills stuck in her face. Poor girl never learned. She got ran over by the school bus. I was outside playing at the time. it was a sad sight.

I know they'll get after me for posting something off-topic. But you, you get free reign. King Ceeboo. Getting treated like royalty.

[_hobo1512]

It's a perfectly good analogy. Someone without access to information asking a 3rd party to access information for him.

Can we just disagree on this without all the drama that ensues when someone disagrees 'round here? The kind of data is important, I would suggest.

You are trying to equate the idea that asking someone if another person is a bishop to asking someone to provide someone's bank account information. I think that's an absurdity. You think it logical and fine. I just plain disagree with you.

If it is wrong for one, it is wrong for both, no matter what the information.

Degree of wrongness would also have to be a factor as it relates to different types of data, in my opinion. Disagree with you again.

You made a comment about personal information not being accessed. Isn't a person's name personal information?

What person's name? The name of the person that Dan already had?

He gave a list of names to someone to look up in your church's computer system. That is accessing personal information.

Great. We agree. Something was accessed. Was anyone's name derived from the directory? nope.

John Doe, Jim Doe, and Bill Doe are all on Peterson's list. His buddy looks each one up to see if they are a bishop. He is accessing each individuals record and seeing information about them, including whether or not they are a bishop.

no. That's not what happened.

Even if he just looked at some sort of list that showed just bishops names, Peterson is getting information about individuals that he is not entitled to. If I call the same bishop and ask him if Frank Doe is a bishop, do you think he's going to do the same for me? How about the random pew sitting Mormon?

Beats me. I can't help the Dan's bishop friend trusted Dan and others may not trust you.

Why didn't he just call the individuals on the list and ask? Instead, he sneaks and peaks.

Easier for him. I suppose he could have called, provided he had contact information for them. Why does it matter to you? Was anyone's personal information given to Dan? Did the bishop friend discover some private information about anyone? It doesn't appear so.

Thanks again for the questions.

Private data is private data, no matter what computer it is on.

Private computer systems such as the one your church uses has restrictions on its use just like one used in a bank.

Accessing private data of any sort at the request of a friend, and outside the scope of your responsibilities is both morally wrong, and wrong as far as the owner of the data is concerned.

There is no "degree" of wrongness in this. You are simply trying to rationalize a way to make peterson not look like a bad guy in this.

My analogy between the church's computer system and the bank's is quite on target because finances can be accessed through the church's computer system can it not? Tithing information is both financial and private don't you think?

It is fine that you disagree. That is your privilege. I just feel sorry for you that you don't see the lack of morals in what was done. I feel sorry that you don't see it as a violation of privacy.

We don't know what additional information was accessed in this little escapade. Even if there wasn't additional information given out, it just makes it easier the next time peterson asks a favor of this bishop. That is why rules about accessing information are in place to begin with. Duh.

Remember Helen Radkey? She convinced Mormon members to give her their log in information to research different dead people getting their ordinances. What is going to stop this bishop from doing the same thing for peterson. Assuming he hasn't done so already.

Peterson is setting himself up in a very Orwellian 1984 scenario, and trying to become Big Brother. (no, it wasn't a slam about his waistline)
Just sayin.

[_sock puppet]

Stem, let me ask you a question that Liz, Harmony, and a couple others have yet to answer.

If I ask my friend who is a branch manger of your bank to access your accounts because I want him to, is that OK?

uh...serious? You are equating this to accessing someone's bank account? Well I'll answer no here. It's not okay.

If I ask him if you've ever been overdrawn, is that OK?

It's okay with me, personally. But generally I'd say no.

If I ask him about your personal information, is that OK?

no

If it is wrong, how is it wrong as opposed to what Peterson did?

No private or personal information was used, passed on, or really accessed.

Should the branch manager be punished? Why shouldn't Peterson be punished?

By all means, turn in Peterson and get him punished if ya like. I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished. Where's the whip?

Should I be punished? Why shouldn't the bishop be punished?

Who says that you nor the bishop should not be punished?

Punish one, punish all. Seriously we're all punished for our deeds to some extend. Should the bishop lose his calling? uh...that wouldn't be a punishment at all, but that's not really my call. hmmm...I say yes. he should be released and then castrated.

Sound fair to you?

It's a perfectly good analogy. Someone without access to information asking a 3rd party to access information for him.

If it is wrong for one, it is wrong for both, no matter what the information.

You made a comment about personal information not being accessed. Isn't a person's name personal information?

He gave a list of names to someone to look up in your church's computer system. That is accessing personal information.

John Doe, Jim Doe, and Bill Doe are all on Peterson's list. His buddy looks each one up to see if they are a bishop. He is accessing each individuals record and seeing information about them, including whether or not they are a bishop.

Even if he just looked at some sort of list that showed just bishops names, Peterson is getting information about individuals that he is not entitled to. If I call the same bishop and ask him if Frank Doe is a bishop, do you think he's going to do the same for me? How about the random pew sitting Mormon?

Why didn't he just call the individuals on the list and ask? Instead, he sneaks and peaks.

No, stem, is right. The analogy is way off base. One does not have a significant interest in the privacy of his or her information by Big E's one true church about who is on the naughty and nice rolls as compared to the significance of a privacy interest regarding his or her bank account.

It would be dead wrong for a branch manager of a bank to do that, but not for DCP.

The analogy tried to apply an example of real significance to something that is all make believe anyway.

[_stemelbow]

Private data is private data, no matter what computer it is on.

Private computer systems such as the one your church uses has restrictions on its use just like one used in a bank.

Accessing private data of any sort at the request of a friend, and outside the scope of your responsibilities is both morally wrong, and wrong as far as the owner of the data is concerned.

There is no "degree" of wrongness in this. You are simply trying to rationalize a way to make peterson not look like a bad guy in this.

So is Peterson a bad guy? is that what you want to come of this? I simply don't see the problem here. No information was viewed or transferred. But I've said this already. No need to fight endlessly about it. youw ant to agree to disagree or do you really want this to be made a federal case?

My analogy between the church's computer system and the bank's is quite on target because finances can be accessed through the church's computer system can it not? Tithing information is both financial and private don't you think?

Are you suggesting the bishop friend accessed tithing information? CFR? I thought he merely looked at a list of names to see if another list of names were found.

It is fine that you disagree. That is your privilege. I just feel sorry for you that you don't see the lack of morals in what was done. I feel sorry that you don't see it as a violation of privacy.

No need to feel sorry. You can if you want, but it's a waste of your energy. I'm doing fine. I even live a rather honest life. I try my best. I've never asked a bishop friend to see if someone on a list comes up as a bishop or nothing.

We don't know what additional information was accessed in this little escapade. Even if there wasn't additional information given out, it just makes it easier the next time peterson asks a favor of this bishop. That is why rules about accessing information are in place to begin with. Duh.

The rules are in place so the information is not misused. No information was used at all. So there's no worry here. I don't know about you, but I just don't suspect people of evil. If they say no data was passed from the bishop friend to peterson I believe them. No additional information was accessed in my book. It'd be up to you to prove otherwise if that's your contention.

Remember Helen Radkey? She convinced Mormon members to give her their log in information to research different dead people getting their ordinances. What is going to stop this bishop from doing the same thing for peterson. Assuming he hasn't done so already.

What? Someone did something so that means another person will also do that something?

Peterson is setting himself up in a very Orwellian 1984 scenario, and trying to become Big Brother. (no, it wasn't a slam about his waistline)
Just sayin.

lol. That's a funny thought. But I don't think you have any reason to think it, other than you really want it to be true, it seems. Any reason? Did Peterson even ask his friend that if a name on this list popped up as being a bishop that his friend should give that name to Peterson? Nope. Read the OP. Peterson wouldn't even have suspected any name that would have popped up would have been Everybody Wang Chung anyway.

[_stemelbow]

No, stem, is right. The analogy is way off base.

About the only sensible thing I've seen SP type out on this board, ever.

I'm sure he's a nice dude in real life, but man is he wrong a lot. Even the wrongest person in the world can be right sometimes.

Thanks, bro.

[_cafe crema]

So this guy buys a brand new Cadillac, loaded with all the extras and takes it for a drive. He gets pulled over by a group of gang-bangers and by knife, they pull him out of the car. They take him to the side of a country road, take a stick and draw a circle in the dirt. They tell him to get inside and that if he steps outside of the circle they will break every bone in his body.

Then then go back to his shinny new Cadillac and start breaking the windows, smashing the doors in, busting up his new stereo system and slicing the tires.

When they look back at the guy in the circle, he is cracking up with laughter.

They walk over to him and say: "What the hell is so funny, we just trashed your new car, busted your stereo into pieces and flattened all your tires"

The guy replies while still laughing: "Yea, well while you weren't looking, I stepped out of the circle!"


Peace,
Ceeboo

[_sock puppet]

No, stem, is right. The analogy is way off base.

About the only sensible thing I've seen SP type out on this board, ever.

I'm sure he's a nice dude in real life, but man is he wrong a lot. Even the wrongest person in the world can be right sometimes.

Thanks, bro.

So you agree with the context--the reason that Dan's ethical lapse is of no consequence is because Mormonism is all a made-up myth and of no consequence?