Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

[_ldsfaqs]

Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

You people are so funny.... No "church rules" were broken here. Why?

Because a member of the Church suspected "immoral" and potentially "illegal" behavior by another member of the Church or someone posing to be a member and a Bishop, and he brought the information to a Bishop of the Church to investigate the issue further.

Dan Peterson did his action for the Church, not anything for himself "personally".

When are you people going to be on the side of Light, Truth, and Right, instead of the perversion of it???

[_ldsfaqs]

I agree, but I think acting upon a request from DCP to investigate the names of people on a private trip to the Middle east is not part of that Bishops Church 'work'.
It's personal interest for a private individual.

A member engaging in anti-LDS activities and posing as a Bishop would most certainly fall within a members duty to report to a Bishop and for that Bishop to then investigate.

Thus, it's most certainly part of the Bishop's Church "work".

[_ldsfaqs]

Since Mormons, especially temple recommend holding Mormons, are charged with a higher moral code, one has to ask if this is Christlike behavior?

- Doc

A member having concerning about another "supposed" member who also claims to be a Bishop but engages in regular anti-mormon attacks against the Church and bringing the said information to a Bishop to further investigate when they have information that might verify this person's claims, is perfectly within "Christlike" behavior.

What is not Christlike behavior is what occurs on this forum by most here in degrading people and the Church in such unholy and false manners, even by this "Wang Chung".

[_Harold Lee]

I agree, but I think acting upon a request from DCP to investigate the names of people on a private trip to the Middle east is not part of that Bishops Church 'work'.
It's personal interest for a private individual.

A member engaging in anti-LDS activities and posing as a Bishop would most certainly fall within a members duty to report to a Bishop and for that Bishop to then investigate.

Thus, it's most certainly part of the Bishop's Church "work".

I'm sorry is criticizing Mormon apologists like DCP anti-mormon? Because I was under the impression their opinion were purely their own private opinions. Under the impression because they said it themselves.

If they don't speak for the church, then it's no more anti-mormon to disagree with them than to agree.

You can't have your cake and eat it to. Do the Mormon apologists we criticize speak for the church or not? Then stop calling it anti-mormon. We're very anti-FAIR and anti-FARMS because we should be. They're dishonest to the core.

[_MsJack]

You people are so funny.... No "church rules" were broken here. Why?

Because a member of the Church suspected "immoral" and potentially "illegal" behavior by another member of the Church or someone posing to be a member and a Bishop, and he brought the information to a Bishop of the Church to investigate the issue further.

Can you please cite for me the section of the Handbook which states that ordinary members are allowed to access that private information through a bishop so long as they suspect immoral or illegal activity?

Because I find the suggestion that all that a normal member has to do to access that information is suspect (not have definitive proof of, but suspect) immoral activity to be rather alarming.

[_Harold Lee]

You people are so funny.... No "church rules" were broken here. Why?

Because a member of the Church suspected "immoral" and potentially "illegal" behavior by another member of the Church or someone posing to be a member and a Bishop, and he brought the information to a Bishop of the Church to investigate the issue further.

Can you please cite for me the section of the Handbook which states that ordinary members are allowed to access that private information through a bishop so long as they suspect immoral or illegal activity?

The ends justify the means. Spinning lies, making unfounded claims up, hiding truth, even creepy stalking is okay, as long as it's all done to promote Mormon faith.

[Guest]

-

[_suniluni2]

Since when is everyone around here so concerned about members keeping the church rules? lol This is between him and the church. And let's get something straight, it doesn't matter that petey used his "commercial" information, ok? The policy regarding the use of the database allowed personal non-commercial use for church purposes. How people started inferring that meant he couldn't use it to check his commercial information against is beyond me. "Non-commercial" applies to the use of the site, not anything else. His use was non-commercial.

And this wasn't as clandestine and creepy as ya'all are making it out to be. Everybody Wang Chung posted in real life information in a public forum and the guy checked it out. If you want to protect your anonymity then don't post identifiable in real life information.

And why did he lie anyway? He may not have lied; maybe he changed his mind and didn't go, I don't know. But an explanation would be nice, unless I've missed it.

[_huckelberry]

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.

[_Kishkumen]

Since when is everyone around here so concerned about members keeping the church rules?

Since when have I not been? My entire interest in this mess had to do with whether attacks on fellow members of the Church from BYU campus was really kosher. And I am not the only one. 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?