Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

[_stemelbow]

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?

uh yeah....

As I said, even the wrongest of people can be right sometimes. I was hoping you would be reasonable for more than a couple of sentences. Guess not.

two good sentences: "No, stem, is right. The analogy is way off base."

The rest of your explanation is a sorry one. Think it through a little more, then come back to me.

[_Darth J]

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?

uh yeah....

As I said, even the wrongest of people can be right sometimes. I was hoping you would be reasonable for more than a couple of sentences. Guess not.

two good sentences: "No, stem, is right. The analogy is way off base."

The rest of your explanation is a sorry one. Think it through a little more, then come back to me.

This makes no sense, since the reason the analogy is off base is precisely because Mormonism is a myth. It's unfortunate that the petty tribalism of Mormontology is so long on vapid trolling, and so short on critical thinking.

On the other hand, faith is evidence that I have faith because of my faith.

[_Ceeboo]

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

(Love the Bobble Heads!)

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Darth J]

See, the reason an analogy is faulty is because the two things being compared are not similar in the way that the proponent of the analogy is claiming. Analogies only have explanatory power to the extent that the two things being compared are similar in a meaningful way.

Cherry picking the conclusory statement that the analogy is way off base, while rejecting the reason why the analogy is way off base, isn't even reasoning. It's just the same intellectually and ethically bankrupt tribalism that Mormontology continually shows itself to be.

ETA: That being said, the Eight Witnesses allegedly saw a set of metal plates that Joseph Smith showed them, and since merely having a set of metal plates, with no other context, was the claim Joseph Smith was making, we have evidence that Joseph Smith had a set of metal plates, just like he said. And the existence of a set of metal plates, standing alone, is of course the claim that the LDS Church still makes today. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=16660

[_hobo1512]

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

You're right, what was I thinking!?!

Maybe I should have tried one of the super duper handshakes or passwords to see if it was real or make believe.

Thanks for showing me the error of my ways.

[_hobo1512]

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.

CFR on your source that shows no personal information was accessed. Peterson's word doesn't really count considering he has been known to exaggerate, and/or withhold key information.

Read my post again. Really slow this time. I did not say anyone DID access tithing information, so your CFR is hereby dismissed.

Peterson crossed boundries, and obvious ones at that. All the mental gymnastics in the world will not change that. His bishop buddy is knee deep in this as well.

I'm sorry you can't see the forest for the trees George. Watch out for that tree!!!

[_Darth J]

Assuming Peterson's story to be true, "None of the people who paid to hear you talk about your interpretation of Mormonism in Israel is a current bishop" is, in fact, information.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/information

[_cafe crema]

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

On a porcupine, the pricks are on the outside.


Peace,
Ceeboo

Sorry I missed this joke, here's your bobblehead

[_hobo1512]

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

On a porcupine, the pricks are on the outside.


Peace,
Ceeboo

Sorry I missed this joke, here's your bobblehead

I want one!!

[_cafe crema]

Sorry I missed this joke, here's your bobblehead

I want one!!

Amazon