ldsfaqs wrote:You people are so funny.... No "church rules" were broken here.
Actually ldsfaqs, you really are not allowed an opinion on this because you are a pinko-liberal who has flagrantly and openly redefined marriage to include divorce. The simple reason you don’t have a comfortable home with a family is because Heavenly Father removed his blessings from your life, like he does to all Liberals who hate truth and love Satan.
Until you have eyes to see and ears to hear, go back to worshipping Rachel Maddow and the Kennedy Family.
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. 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.
You're simply changing the subject. Obviously you were wrong when you assumed that no one around here has been interested in those things, and you should have guessed you would be wrong based on your shallow experience with the board.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
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?
Actually Stak, I hadn't thought of this debacle in terms of the other individuals who went on that particular trip who have subsequently, unbeknown to them, been checked out illicitly to see if they hold Church positions etc. DCP secretly sleuthing his commercial clients and using an ordained Bishop and the Church private database to do his dirty work.
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
I haven't been on this board to know the board dynamics. Usually it seems there are one or two up tight people that everyone likes to play. And the rest are sarcastic jokers yanking chains. I hope that's what's going on in this thread. Because if any of you are serious about this, you really need to take a break from this fight and look at the big picture.
I comment that I disagreed with Stak that Dan broke Church policy here and suddenly disagreement with him suggests I am off-topic?
Lesson from this--don't disagree with the masses, or they will not only gang up on you and pout, but they will get moderators to get your dissenting opinion out of the thread.
Dan didn't acquire any information out of this other than Everybody Wang Chung has been lying. That's simply not a violation of the rules in question.
But if you guys think it is, then go right ahead and prove it for once.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Your posts were moved to another thread because they had more to do with accusing Everybody Wang Chung of lying that they did with the topic of this thread. Stay on-topic or troll somewhere else.
The CHI states, "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." It does not say that leaders can look into this information for personal purposes so long as they don't give said information out to others. Besides, the bishop did give information out to others: he confirmed to Dan that none of the names Dan gave him were bishops.
Unless the church formally requested that this bishop look into these records on Dan's behalf, yes, the bishop broke the rules.
"It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13
In answer to the original statement "Dan Peterson breaks Church rules in pursuit of Mopologetics" the answer is 'no he did not'. However, his friend the Bishop who went seeking out information from the Church databases, certainly did.
Now, having done that favour for DCP what does he get for his trouble? A public "outing". Some chum...
What DCP did was illicitly check into the Church backgrounds of his customers without informing them he was going to do so.
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)