Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

[_lulu]

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.

Bazooka, I've got a deal for you.

Go rob a bank for me and then bring back all of the money and give it to me.

You'll go to jail and I get to keep the money.

Sucker.

[_Bazooka]

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.

Bazooka, I've got a deal for you.

Go rob a bank for me and then bring back all of the money and give it to me.

You'll go to jail and I won't.

Sucker.

The difference being, DCP's pet Bishop didn't break any laws of the land (did he?).
He broke the laws of the Lord, which DCP encouraged/requested him to do.
I think the Bishop who did DCP's bidding is answerable for his actions to the Church - meaning his Stake President and his ward members. In point of fact, he is duty bound to confess his sin.
DCP is answerable to his friend, the Bishop, for publicly 'outing' that he did what DCP claims he did.
DCP is answerable to his customers for checking into their LDS backgrounds without their authorisation.
DCP is answerable to his own conscience and the Lord for behaviour unbecoming of a Latter Day Saint.

Now where shall I drop off this money?

[_Kishkumen]

The difference being, DCP's pet Bishop didn't break any laws of the land (did he?).
He broke the laws of the Lord, which DCP encouraged/requested him to do.
I think the Bishop who did DCP's bidding is answerable for his actions to the Church - meaning his Stake President and his ward members. In point of fact, he is duty bound to confess his sin.
DCP is answerable to his friend, the Bishop, for publicly 'outing' that he did what DCP claims he did.
DCP is answerable to his customers for checking into their LDS backgrounds without their authorisation.
DCP is answerable to his own conscience and the Lord for behaviour unbecoming of a Latter Day Saint.

Now where shall I drop off this money?

As a member of the LDS Church, do you have access to Everybody Wang Chung's membership records?

If not, why?

[Guest]

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.

Bazooka, I've got a deal for you.

Go rob a bank for me and then bring back all of the money and give it to me.

You'll go to jail and I won't.

Sucker.

The difference being, DCP's pet Bishop didn't break any laws of the land (did he?). He broke the laws of the Lord,

Some would say the laws of the Lord are even more important than the laws of the land.

So, a distintion without a difference as far as the rules in question go.

which DCP encouraged/requested him to do.

Now you're getting it.

I think the Bishop who did DCP's bidding is answerable for his actions to the Church - meaning his Stake President and his ward members.

Why yes he is. Which does not exculpate DCP for instigating and benefiting.

DCP is answerable to his friend, the Bishop, for publicly 'outing' that he did what DCP claims he did.

DCP is answerable to his customers for checking into their LDS backgrounds without their authorisation.
DCP is answerable to his own conscience and the Lord for behaviour unbecoming of a Latter Day Saint.

DCP is answerable to no one. If you don't believe me, just ask him.

Now where shall I drop off this money?

A first week law student in Bhutan (nothing against Bhutan) could work his way through this problem.

Go find me a legal system that does not recognize:

1. Accomplice before the fact.

2. Accomplice after the fact.

3. Conspiracy.

I don't know of one.

The bishop has already dropped of the "money" at DCP's house the "money" being the further feeding of DCP's perverse psychology.

You'll make a fine common judge in Zion, Bazooka.

[_Bazooka]

Go find me a legal system that does not recognize:

1. Accomplice before the fact.

2. Accomplice after the fact.

3. Conspiracy.

I don't know of one.

Well there's some parts of Africa and Eastern Europe but it's gonna cost us...

The bishop has already dropped of the "money" at DCP's house the "benefit" being the further feeding of DCP's perverse psychology.

You'll make a fine common judge in Zion, Bazooka.[/color]

Why thank you.... oh, wait....

[_lulu]

Go find me a legal system that does not recognize:

1. Accomplice before the fact.

2. Accomplice after the fact.

3. Conspiracy.

I don't know of one.

Well there's some parts of Africa and Eastern Europe but it's gonna cost us...

You're not getting off that easy.

[Guest]

The difference being, DCP's pet Bishop didn't break any laws of the land (did he?).
He broke the laws of the Lord, which DCP encouraged/requested him to do.
I think the Bishop who did DCP's bidding is answerable for his actions to the Church - meaning his Stake President and his ward members. In point of fact, he is duty bound to confess his sin.
DCP is answerable to his friend, the Bishop, for publicly 'outing' that he did what DCP claims he did.
DCP is answerable to his customers for checking into their LDS backgrounds without their authorisation.
DCP is answerable to his own conscience and the Lord for behaviour unbecoming of a Latter Day Saint.

Now where shall I drop off this money?

As a member of the LDS Church, do you have access to Everybody Wang Chung's membership records?

If not, why?

As a 'member' no. Because this information is held by the church on the understanding that 'members' not have access to it.
However, ward lists and ward directories are available to any member serving in any ward leadership for their Stake. And a lot of Stakes publish this kind of information in directories that are available to all members in that Stake.
Some of it is freely available online:
http://www.LDS.org/rcmaps/?lang=eng#ll= ... oad&x=ward
(The above link enables anyone with internet access to obtain the meeting times and Bishops name and phone number for any specific LDS congregation in the world).

In what capacity is DCP answerable to the Church organisation?
As I see it, he is answerable to his Bishop (I assume his in real life Bishop is not the one who DCP outed as having his fingers in the till on DCP's behalf, but I suppose one never knows) for his behaviour as a member of the Church. He certainly doesn't merit holding a Temple Recommend whilst he has this unresolved sin on his conscience.

[_stemelbow]

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

Please turn him/them in then. Start with tattling on Peterson. My guess is this won't get anywhere. No one will take it seriously? Why? because no information was taken from the directory at all. The spirit of the rule is clearly to not use the information for marketing or political purposes or some other such thing. It has nothing to do with whether one can check up on someone whose boasting about things on the internet while attacking people. Indeed, many would see this as a good thing rather than a bad thing.

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

And he did not. So not strikes still.

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.

who are you?

Wilford W. Andersen
Koichi Aoyagi
Randall K. Bennett
Bruce A. Carlson
J. Devn Cornish
Bradley D. Foster
O. Vincent Haleck
Larry R. Lawrence
Per G. Malm
James B. Martino
Jairo Mazzagardi
Kent F. Richards
Gregory A. Schwitzer
Kent D. Watson
Larry Y. Wilson

-found on LDS.org

That is cool. And with the type of connections you have then you can certainly do something about this. Right?

[_stemelbow]

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.

I'm not sure I can rely on your recounting of the events MsJack, since you've proven here that you are unwilling to be fair in your assessments.

Can I count this as an hypothetical instead?

If you are the young woman and some dude is doing as you claim, I say it would be wise for you to alert authorities--church authorities. For crying out loud, you had his name at least. Start there.

if the evidence points to you mischaracterizing him, well, then it might not be taken seriously. That's how it goes.

[_Kishkumen]

As a 'member' no.

That's right. So, as a member, you would be breaking the rules by illicitly accessing, either directly or indirectly, information that was restricted to you according to the rules of the organization to which you and your friend accessing those records belong.