Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_MrStakhanovite
_Emeritus
Posts: 5269
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:32 am

Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

Post by _MrStakhanovite »

Here is the evidence-

URL to Dan's post: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/60262-review-of-greg-smiths-review-of-mormon-stories/page__st__80#entry1209235403

Text of Dan's post:
Dan Peterson wrote:There's always "Everybody Wang Chung," I suppose. He claims to be a currently serving bishop. He also claimed that his wife surprised him with a tour to Israel this past April/May, led by me. He was, he promised, going to go and to report back to his apostate buddies on all my silly Mopologist antics there. Later, when asked, he claimed to have actually gone, and again, under prodding, promised to provide a chronicle of my ridiculousness while he was with me in the Middle East. So far as I can tell, he's never done so. Finally, just the other day, I got out a list of all of the people who accompanied me on that tour, and I had a friend who is a bishop cross check it against the Church's leadership directory. There were no currently serving bishops on that tour. I suppose Everybody Wang Chung's claim could still somehow be true, but I very much doubt it. It seems far and away most likely that he isn't a currently serving bishop, despite his assertions (he doesn't seem to believe much of anything, and is contemptuous of those who do, often in pretty foul language), and that he didn't go to Israel with me. In other words, if I had to bet, I would bet that he's a fraud.


Screen Shot of Post.

This is what it violates:

Rollo Tomasi wrote:Here it is in relevant part, from Section 13.8 entitled "Confidentiality of Records" in Handbook 1 (2010) (emphasis added):

The records of the Church are confidential, whether they exist on paper, in computers, or in other electronic media. These include membership records, financial records, notes of meetings, official forms and documents (including records of disciplinary councils), and notes made from private interviews.

Leaders and clerks are to safeguard Church records by handling, storing, and disposing of them in a way that protects the privacy of individuals. Leaders ensure that information that is gathered from members is (1) limited to what the Church requires and (2) used only for approved Church purposes.

Information from Church records and reports may be given only to those who are authorized to use it.

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.



EDIT #1. Here is Dan's first response.

Dan wrote:Here’s how my latest crime against humanity went down:

1. Sometime in 2011, I believe, “Everybody Wang Chung” [hereafter, Everybody Wang Chung], a pseudonymous poster on a mostly agnostic/atheist message board largely populated by apostate Mormons and overwhelmingly devoted to virulent criticism of the Church and of some of those who defend it—criticism in which Everybody Wang Chung enthusiastically participates—claims to have accepted ordination as a Latter-day Saint bishop.

2. Somewhere late in 2011, Everybody Wang Chung claims to have been surprised by his wife (who seems to be unaware of his attitude toward the Church) with an early Christmas present: She’s signed him up for a tour of Israel, late in April 2012, led by Daniel Peterson. He promises to report to the message board on Peterson’s ludicrous antics and ridiculous statements while in Israel, and to post photographs. Some amused comments follow for several days, encouraging him in his plans and suggesting needling questions he might ask. Peterson, who checks in on this particular message board from time to time in order to find out what the critics are up to, is not happy at the thought of a contemptuous apostate covertly sneering at him throughout the tour (e.g., when Peterson is speaking, and testimonies are borne by tour participants, at the Mount of Beatitudes, in the Garden of Gethsemane, and at the Garden Tomb).

3. Comments on the message board soon die down, however, and, over the course of the six months or so between (2) and the tour, Peterson forgets about Everybody Wang Chung’s claim. Thus, when he actually leads the tour, Peterson isn’t thinking about the matter at all. He gets to know everybody on the tour reasonably well—they spend roughly sixteen hours together daily, every day, for ten days—and everyone appears to have a satisfying experience in the Holy Land. Peterson and his wife, who accompanies him on these tours, consider the participants friends. (Some already were.)

4. A month or so after the conclusion of the tour, however, somebody asks Everybody Wang Chung if he actually went to Israel with Daniel Peterson, and whether he’s going to post any reports. Yes, he responds, he did go. And he will be posting reports. They never come.

5. In the meantime, though, Everybody Wang Chung continues to post comments on the message board that seem radically incongruous with being a faithful member of the Church, let alone a currently-serving bishop. Many of them are extremely insulting toward Peterson. He is also reputed to have sent some extraordinarily abusive and crude emails to one or two people who are friendly to Peterson. Some of his posts actually trade on his alleged status as a currently serving bishop: On several occasions, for example, he declares Peterson worthy of Church disciplinary action. On others, he publicly apologizes to the world on behalf of the Church for Peterson’s evil deeds, viciousness, and dishonesty.

6. Watching these things, and hearing about them, Peterson reflects upon those who toured Israel with him in April/May 2012. He and his wife conclude that such behavior plausibly fits nobody on the tour, and that Everybody Wang Chung’s claim to have accompanied them to Israel must be a lie.

7. Finally, in March 2013, having observed Everybody Wang Chung’s behavior for nearly a year since the tour, Peterson gets out a list of the participants on the April 2012 trip to Israel. Were any of them actually currently-serving bishops? It’s easy to eliminate most of those on the list (e.g., women, himself, and people he knows in his daily life) as potential candidates. But a small number of men remain—none of whom seem even remotely plausible as sneering closet apostates engaged in a clandestine vendetta against Peterson—who might be bishops.

8. Peterson asks a friend of his who is currently serving as a bishop to check those names against the Church leadership directory. Were there any currently-serving bishops on that tour? The answer comes back No. There were none. This seems to confirm Peterson’s confident belief that Everybody Wang Chung has been lying about either being a bishop, or going on that April 2012 tour of Israel, or—most likely—both. Peterson says so publicly, on another message board.

8a. Had the answer come back that there was a bishop on that tour, that answer would not have surprised Peterson. Several bishops have gone with him to Israel before—including, one year, Peterson’s own. In fact, he can’t recall any other tour that didn’t have at least one bishop on it. But, strikingly, there were none on the April 2012 tour.

8b. Had the answer come back that there was a bishop on that tour, there would have been no particular reason to believe him to be Everybody Wang Chung. The purpose of comparing the list of tour participants was to see if there was a way to prove that a currently-serving bishop posting as Everybody Wang Chung had not come to Israel. A clear disproof was possible, but far from certain. As it happened, though, the answer was clear and decisive.

8c. Since, at the most, the crosscheck could have served only the negative function of demonstrating that no bishop went to Israel with Peterson in April 2012, it could not actually have identified Everybody Wang Chung. So there was never a question of using it to ascertain, let alone to publicly reveal, Everybody Wang Chung’s identity. Nor was there was ever any intent to do so. There was no quest for private personal details. Holding the office of a bishop is a matter of public knowledge, and hardly secret. Bishops are sustained by their congregations, announced publicly, and officiate visibly. Peterson’s check with his currently-serving friend could (and, as it happens, did) establish a negative, but was incapable of making a positive identification.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Mar 20, 2013 7:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_Molok
_Emeritus
Posts: 1832
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 4:31 am

Re: Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologet

Post by _Molok »

Was it ever determined if the Bishop was a member of Strengthening Church Members Committee? I believe Tom said that it wouldn't be a violation of church rules if that were the case.
_MrStakhanovite
_Emeritus
Posts: 5269
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:32 am

Re: Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologet

Post by _MrStakhanovite »

Mods, please do not remove this post when the inevitable threats of legal action come rolling in from the usual suspects. This is not libel; the evidence is strongly supports Dan Peterson is in clear violation of the Church Handbook. Please let this thread stand as a clear testament as to the character of Dan Peterson and the lengths he will go to in trying to strike back at people.
_MrStakhanovite
_Emeritus
Posts: 5269
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:32 am

Re: Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologet

Post by _MrStakhanovite »

Molok wrote:Was it ever determined if the Bishop was a member of Strengthening Church Members Committee? I believe Tom said that it wouldn't be a violation of church rules if that were the case.


I would for Dan to say this, since he has denied ever being involved in that sort of thing.
_Stormy Waters

Re: Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologet

Post by _Stormy Waters »

Molok wrote:Was it ever determined if the Bishop was a member of Strengthening Church Members Committee? I believe Tom said that it wouldn't be a violation of church rules if that were the case.


I suppose that it make it a "church approved" action. I, for one, would be interested to know if the church was using their databases and information to try indentify anonymous online posters. I imagine they have, but an official acknowledgement would be nice.
_Madison54
_Emeritus
Posts: 1382
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 6:37 pm

Re: Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologet

Post by _Madison54 »

MrStakhanovite wrote:Here is the evidence-

URL to Dan's post: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/60262-review-of-greg-smiths-review-of-mormon-stories/page__st__80#entry1209235403

Text of Dan's post:
Dan Peterson wrote:There's always "Everybody Wang Chung," I suppose. He claims to be a currently serving bishop. He also claimed that his wife surprised him with a tour to Israel this past April/May, led by me. He was, he promised, going to go and to report back to his apostate buddies on all my silly Mopologist antics there. Later, when asked, he claimed to have actually gone, and again, under prodding, promised to provide a chronicle of my ridiculousness while he was with me in the Middle East. So far as I can tell, he's never done so. Finally, just the other day, I got out a list of all of the people who accompanied me on that tour, and I had a friend who is a bishop cross check it against the Church's leadership directory. There were no currently serving bishops on that tour. I suppose Everybody Wang Chung's claim could still somehow be true, but I very much doubt it. It seems far and away most likely that he isn't a currently serving bishop, despite his assertions (he doesn't seem to believe much of anything, and is contemptuous of those who do, often in pretty foul language), and that he didn't go to Israel with me. In other words, if I had to bet, I would bet that he's a fraud.


Screen Shot of Post.

To me, it appears that DCP has copied and pasted the above paragraph from something else (when he posted it on MAD...click on the screenshot link above). It's different size font, etc. Did he post this somewhere else too or is it just probably from one of his emails? Just curious.
_MrStakhanovite
_Emeritus
Posts: 5269
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:32 am

Re: Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologet

Post by _MrStakhanovite »

What I do not want discussed on this thread is the issue of Everybody Wang Chung’s claim. If Everybody Wang Chung lied about either being a bishop or going on that cruise is immaterial to the subject at hand; Dan Peterson broke Church policy in attempting to discover the identity of an anonymous poster.
_3sheets2thewind
_Emeritus
Posts: 1451
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 11:28 pm

Re: alleged

Post by _3sheets2thewind »

There are two different sign-in pages for the leadership directory, both have different terms of use as well.

The online directory that looks most like a current Church page has the following as a condition of use - which appears to the updated and/or most current "conditions of use":

Licenses and Restrictions This site is owned and operated by Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All material found at this site (including visuals, text, icons, displays, databases, and general information) is owned or licensed by us. You may view, download, and print material from this site only for your personal, noncommercial use directly related to your work for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (whether as a volunteer, as part of a Church calling, or as a paid employee of an affiliated legal entity).


The question becomes is searching for a name on the list - which search appears initiated by a person not entitled to the information - directly related to the bishops service.
Last edited by Guest on Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Re: Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologet

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

MrStakhanovite wrote:Here is the evidence-....

Daniel C. Peterson wrote:Finally, just the other day, I got out a list of all of the people who accompanied me on that tour, and I had a friend who is a bishop cross check it against the Church's leadership directory. There were no currently serving bishops on that tour.

Yup, this admission sure seems an obvious violation of the Church's records policy. DCP took a list of customers from one of his commercial ventures, gave it to a bishop friend, and the bishop then accessed an LDS Church document (i.e., leadership directory) and checked each name on DCP's customer list to determine whether any name on that list matched a name in the Church's document. This violates so many parts of Section 13.8 in Handbook 1, that this bishop MUST be released IMMEDIATELY.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Re: Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologet

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

3sheets2thewind wrote:The online directory that looks most like a current Church page has the following as a condition of use:

Licenses and Restrictions This site is owned and operated by Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All material found at this site (including visuals, text, icons, displays, databases, and general information) is owned or licensed by us. You may view, download, and print material from this site only for your personal, noncommercial use directly related to your work for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (whether as a volunteer, as part of a Church calling, or as a paid employee of an affiliated legal entity).

The question becomes is searching for a name on the list - which search appears initiated by a person not entitled to the information - directly related to the bishops service.

Methinks not. The bishop was doing this solely for DCP's benefit, related to one of DCP's commercial ventures. As far as I can tell, this bishop did not do this because of his ecclesiastical duties, but out of friendship for DCP. What this bishop did, and what DCP asked the bishop to do, were completely and utterly WRONG.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Post Reply