Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

[_malkie]

It's not that I don't want to believe. No doubt, I could see it happening, having been on the receiving end of back door Mormon deals. Just wondering what in a blog post would indicate it actually happened, and that it isn't just a blog author trying to one up someone with a blatant lie? Did something in real life actually happen to the dear bishop to indicate the mo-police are stalking him?

If he lied (and I hope he did), then I think Darth's comment rings true:

Yeah, lying about using church resources for your personal stalking pleasure, in order to scare an anonymous nobody on a message board, makes it so much more reasonable.

Then there's that awkward little scripture about lying to catch another in a lie. I think that the scripture expresses disapproval of such behaviour.

[_Shiloh]

Rollo,

I don't think you've paid attention to what I've said.

For instance, what information from the directory did DCP receive? Any piece of data at all?

Stem,

Dan may not have broken the rules but his Bishop friend certainly did.

Here is the notice on the site:

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). You may not make available material from this site on any other Web site or on a computer network. You may not use this site or information found at this site for selling or promoting products or services, soliciting clients, or any other commercial purpose. You may not share your sign-on name or password with anyone. Notwithstanding the foregoing, we reserve the sole discretion and right to deny, revoke, or limit use of this site.

Can you help me understand how Dan's Bishop friend cross checking names from a tour of Israel "directly [relates] to [his] work for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

Shiloh

ETA: If Dan's friend sent this information via email he put the information on a computer network. 2 strikes.

ETA2: I don't care if Everybody Wang Chung lied or not. That is irrelevant to the question I have posed. I'd appreciate it if you would leave any mention of Everybody Wang Chung out of any reply you may provide as Everybody Wang Chung is not relevant in any way to the questions I have posed.

And, for what it's worth, I am currently serving in the 2nd quorum of the seventy.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I guess I'm confused as to what the Mopologists thought they were going to accomplish in all of this. Even if they caught Everybody Wang Chung in a "lie," how is that a victory for them? We've caught them in all kinds of lies--the 2nd Watson Letter, the missing "Murphy Transcript," and DCP getting paid for apologetics are just a few examples that spring immediately to mind. So, what: do they think that they'll at last be able to say, "Hey, look! The critics lie, too!"?

[_Kishkumen]

I guess I'm confused as to what the Mopologists thought they were going to accomplish in all of this. Even if they caught Everybody Wang Chung in a "lie," how is that a victory for them? We've caught them in all kinds of lies--the 2nd Watson Letter, the missing "Murphy Transcript," and DCP getting paid for apologetics are just a few examples that spring immediately to mind. So, what: do they think that they'll at last be able to say, "Hey, look! The critics lie, too!"?

Maybe they were hoping to figure out Everybody Wang Chung's identity to "turn him in" or use his fear to extract information about you?

[_MsJack]

So, I have a question for Alter Idem, stemelbow, Liz, and anyone else who is defending Dan on this matter:

There is a self-styled LDS apologist who used to run a blog and post on blogs under the handle "spamLDS." His real name was Greg West. He was always unbelievably rude to anyone who disagreed with his hyper-conservative brand of Mormonism, quickly branding them anti-Mormon bigots. Most disturbingly, he displayed stalking behavior towards a young, female evangelical blogger, posting her real name on his blog over protests from her and criticizing the accreditation of a degree that she had never publicly mentioned having. At one point he attempted to curse this young woman using his priesthood power.

Mr. West also claimed to be a branch president.

Now, I found it extremely troubling that the church would ever appoint such a man to serve as a leader of others. I thought maybe he was lying about this.

Do you think it would be appropriate for me to approach my husband's bishop and ask him to look up Mr. West and tell me whether or not he really is a branch president? Do you think the bishop would grant my request? Why or why not?

Thanks in advance.

Bump for stemelbow, Alter Idem, and liz3654.

[_Darth J]

For stemelbow, Alter Idem, and liz3654:

The official church purpose for which Daniel Peterson had his bishop friend access confidential church records is (fill in the blank)_____________________________________________.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

One has to wonder if Mr. Peterson has a career death wish? I can't believe a church employee asked a Bishop to use the church's database to violate another American's privacy. This is as bad as it can get. It's really bad. Like, had this been the government doing this without a search warrant someone would be going to jail bad.

It's bad. Really bad..

If I were Mr. Peterson I would immediately disclose what I had done to my church-employers. I'd also have my friend talk to his people, and provide full disclosure.

This is as bad as I've seen people on the Internet get... Borderline criminality.

- Doc

[_Yong Xi]

For stemelbow, Alter Idem, and liz3654:

The official church purpose for which Daniel Peterson had his bishop friend access confidential church records is (fill in the blank)_____________________________________________.

...to satisfy the Church's former chief apologist's narcissistic paranoia.

[_schreech]

Another question for those who have served as bishops (or those that have had access to this private database). I have heard that the LDS church records and documents past sins, disciplinary actions, comments, etc...Is this information available through the search mechanism that DPs buddy used? If they had found an active bishop that went on the trip in question, would they have access to his entire church record or just a verification of his status as a bishop?

[_3sheets2thewind]

One has to wonder if Mr. Peterson has a career death wish? I can't believe a church employee asked a Bishop to use the church's database to violate another American's privacy. This is as bad as it can get. It's really bad. Like, had this been the government doing this without a search warrant someone would be going to jail bad.

It's bad. Really bad..

If I were Mr. Peterson I would immediately disclose what I had done to my church-employers. I'd also have my friend talk to his people, and provide full disclosure.

This is as bad as I've seen people on the Internet get... Borderline criminality.

- Doc

I thought "who needs to threaten DCPs career when DCP perfectly capable and willing to threaten his career."