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.
Post Reply
_Doctor CamNC4Me
_Emeritus
Posts: 21663
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:02 am

Re: Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologet

Post by _Doctor CamNC4Me »

liz3564 wrote:
Rollo wrote:I shouldn't have brought it up. I apologize.


No, you shouldn't have.

Apology accepted.


You actually brought it up.

Rollo,

Don't apologize for something you didn't start. ;)

- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.

Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
_stemelbow
_Emeritus
Posts: 5872
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologet

Post by _stemelbow »

MsJack wrote:CFR, stemelbow. Cite a single place in the entire history of my message board posting where I have been "unwilling to be fair in [my] assessments." I look forward to your examples.


I've done that in this thread. viewtopic.php?p=694610#p694610

In any case, for those who actually are interested in how accurate my account is, the young woman in question confirmed his stalking behavior and his cursing her in the name of the priesthood in the comments on my blog (start here).


So it wasn't you? K. Stalking is enough to alert law enforcement I'd say. Why did she not do that? Weird stuff.

Count it however you want. I think I'm just going to run the question by DH's bishop regardless and report back on whether or not he thinks that's an appropriate use of church resources. You and liz3564 and Alter Idem all say this was a fair use of church resources, and West's behavior towards my friend was far more unhinged and creepier than anything Everybody Wang Chung ever did to Dan, so you should have nothing to worry about. Besides, I'd only be asking the bishop to look up one name, not an entire list of names.


Do whatever you like. If you feel it appropriate to bring up this stuff again, then be my guest. Of course if your husband's bishop is to suspect some breaking of the law as you allege he'd probably be wise to check in on it before he does anything. Then again, if you offer him the ultimatum like you claimed you would about a hypothetical, then he may for your sakes or your husbands, politely decline to help you.

Who knows?
Love ya tons,
Stem


I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
_stemelbow
_Emeritus
Posts: 5872
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologet

Post by _stemelbow »

Darth J wrote:Very good, David. Your religion has a long and proud history of saying one thing in public, but doing another in private. So yeah, asserting that the LDS Church doesn't really care about the privacy of its members personal information is a great way to make your organization look like the real church of Jesus of Nazareth, rather than a vacuous corporate bureaucracy full of empty promises. Let it not be said that the Mormontologist obsession with insular navel gazing has any bearing on how seriously the outside world can be expected to take this religion. Isn't it wonderful? Isn't it marvelous?


You see, DJ. What would happen is, no one will do anything about this. So while you think you have sucha clever point, it just so happens that no information was ever taken and exchanged from the directory. Indeed, the only effort here was to show all the more that Everybody Wang Chung was laying. They both knew he was.

That's so not relevant at all to the issue.


Sure it is.

No. You are hopelessly wrong. The statement you are talking about is a legal document, and the fact that it is on a computer screen instead of paper is not relevant to its status as a legal "document." It is an end user license agreement. License agreements are a type of contract, which are interpreted according to the plain meaning of the language used. It is only if there is some ambiguity in the language---which is not present here---that evidence extraneous to the words of the agreement comes in to determine the intent of the parties. And you have no evidence whatsoever to support your naked, self-serving assertion that the "spirit" of this license agreement allows a non-bishop to try to track down an anonymous nobody over a personal grudge about message board posts. Let's look at what the Utah Supreme Court says about interpreting a contract, since the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Utah corporation sole:

Central Florida Investments, Inc. v. Parkwest Assoc., 2002 UT 3

¶12 In interpreting a contract, the intentions of the parties are controlling. Dixon v. Pro Image, Inc., 1999 UT 89, ¶ 13, 987 P.2d 48 (quotation omitted). "[W]e first look to the four corners of the agreement to determine the intentions of the parties." Ron Case Roofing & Asphalt v. Blomquist, 773 P.2d 1382, 1385 (Utah 1989); see also Reed v. Davis Co. Sch. Dist., 892 P.2d 1063, 1064-1065 (Utah Ct. App. 1995). If the language within the four corners of the contract is unambiguous, the parties intentions are determined from the plain meaning of the contractual language, and the contract may be interpreted as a matter of law. Dixon, 1999 UT 89 at ¶ 14, 987 P.2d 48 (citing Willard Pease Oil & Gas Co. v. Pioneer Oil & Gas Co., 899 P.2d 766, 770 (Utah 1995)). If the language within the four corners of the contract is ambiguous, however, extrinsic evidence must be looked to in order to determine the intentions of the parties. Id. In evaluating whether the plain language is ambiguous, we attempt to harmonize all of the contract's provisions and all of its terms. Id.; see also Buehner Block Co. v. UWC Assocs., 752 P.2d 892, 895 (Utah 1988). "An ambiguity exists where the language 'is reasonably capable of being understood in more than one sense.'" Dixon, 1999 UT 89 at ¶ 14, 987 P.2d 48 (quoting R & R Energies v. Mother Earth Indus., Inc., 936 P.2d 1068, 1074 (Utah 1997) (further quotation omitted)). Accordingly, we first look to the plain language within the four corners of the agreement to determine the intentions of the parties, and we attempt to harmonize the provisions in the pre-printed and addendum portions of the agreement.


Interesting that this is a legal case for you rather than something for the Church to determine.

There is nothing ambiguous about the following words:

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).


And after all of the commotion here, this is the best, I would say, statement that would convict them. So I say, go ahead and turn them in. We'll see what happens.

My goodness, guys you have a member of the 2nd quorum of the 70 posting on this very board. If you need someone to help you convict DCP and his friend contact him. No need, really. He's on this board. He might not a thing about it. But, we all know he must have the connections to do something if you truly felt it was an offense worthy of all of this belly-aching.

According to Peterson's brazen statements on a public message board, he had a current bishop access data that belongs to the Church---THE CHRUCH'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY---for the purpose of satisfying Peterson's obsessive need to get parity of personal information about some anonymous nobody who says on some message board that his interpretation of Mormonism is different than Peterson's. Not only did this bishop (assuming without proof that Peterson's account is accurate) violate the Church's property rights, he violated the privacy of every person on that list Peterson asked him to cross-check.


No they've been clear that they did so because they already knew Everybody Wang Chung was lying. Therefore they also knew doing as they did would not harm anyone.

So guess what, David? If you assert that Daniel Peterson's personal grudges against anonymous internet users are an official church purpose, and one of those people decides his privacy was invaded by an agent of the Church (a bishop) acting within the scope of his employment, guess who gets sued? I'll give you a hint: it rhymes with "Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."


Alrighty then. Go and persue a lawsuit, DJ. I mean I seriously wouldn't advocate you doing so for your sakes, but since you are so adamant you have such a wonderful case do it. Stop pouting about it and do it.

Your little cult of personality is so myopic that you hapless lapdogs have been going on for pages and pages about how wonderful it is to f*** the Church (by invading its property rights and potentially subjecting it to liability) to satisfy Daniel Peterson's personal vendettas. Why don't you just stop calling yourself "LDS" right now, and admit that you, Liz, and Alter Idem are members of the Church of Daniel Peterson?

EDIT: fixed a typo


Nice try. You can be so dramatic it's cute though.

I don't get why you don't stop pouting about harmless things and people as if your dramatic posture means something to someone. Just let things go, DJ, and I'd wager you'd have a much more delightful time.
Love ya tons,
Stem


I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
_Doctor CamNC4Me
_Emeritus
Posts: 21663
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:02 am

Re: Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologet

Post by _Doctor CamNC4Me »

Here you go, Mr. Stemeblow. Pick one for yourself:

https://www.google.com/search?q=the+big ... 00&bih=772

Very Respectfully,

Doctor Cam
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.

Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
_MsJack
_Emeritus
Posts: 4375
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 5:06 am

Re: Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologet

Post by _MsJack »

stemelbow wrote:I've done that in this thread. viewtopic.php?p=694610#p694610

Sorry, I missed this response. Allow me to respond here:

stemelbow wrote:There is a connection. This guy is boasting to be a bishop who attacks DCP.

Wrong. DCP's bishop friend is presumably not Everybody Wang Chung's bishop---especially if Everybody Wang Chung is his own bishop. The bishop friend has no connection to Everybody Wang Chung and no right to potentially be poking around in his church records. None whatsoever. Bishops only have jurisdiction over the people who live in their own ward boundaries.

stemelbow wrote:He didn't give him information, anything more than a no, as far as we know.

The bishop gave Dan the information that none of the people on his list were bishops---information that Dan could not have gotten otherwise. We do not know that the bishop wouldn't have given Dan the names of matches; that strikes me as quite ridiculous.

stemelbow wrote:I'm very curious why you would be so deceptive like this. It's not as if this example has anything to do with accessing information that the church has on you.

There is no deception. You and Dan's defenders are arguing that it's acceptable for a bishop to access the records of people on the Internet whom the bishops have no connection to because their acquaintances suspect that they might be lying. That's just creepy. I've been called a "liar" on the Internet by fauxpologists such as yourself many times and I don't want you people thinking you have the right to access my records or my husband's records via your bishop friends just because of your hysteria.

stemelbow wrote:he just wanted more confirmation on that

Nonsense. He wanted Everybody Wang Chung's identity if he could get it. All he would have had to do had he gotten any matches is check to see if any of them were the owners of large law firms dealing with copyright and defamation claims.

stemelbow wrote:you have clearly shows you aren't fair at all.

Yes, I'm so unfair to Dan that I've defended him on this forum on multiple occasions:

viewtopic.php?p=695278#p695278
viewtopic.php?p=624756#p624756

You, on the other hand, have never agreed with a criticism of him. Never. When people on here say anything critical about him, you show up with your terribad Danpologetics as sure as the sun will rise. So don't lecture me on fairness, because you don't know anything about it.
"It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13

My Blogs: Weighted Glory | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable | Twitter
_stemelbow
_Emeritus
Posts: 5872
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologet

Post by _stemelbow »

MsJack wrote:The bishop gave Dan the information that none of the people on his list were bishops---information that Dan could not have gotten otherwise. We do not know that the bishop wouldn't have given Dan the names of matches; that strikes me as quite ridiculous.


It doesn't matter what strikes you as ridiculous. It matters what we know about it. As it is not one piece of data was given to Dan from the directory. There was no question asked to give Dan the names of any bishops who do appear. Nothing of the sort. You are making that up because it fits well with your own vendetta.

There is no deception. You and Dan's defenders are arguing that it's acceptable for a bishop to access the records of people on the Internet whom the bishops have no connection to because their acquaintances suspect that they might be lying.


No it's much different than that. There is far more to it than anyone suspecting someone might be lying. It's that we all know he is lying. And it's also the case that the bishop probably realizes Everybody Wang Chung is boasting anonymously about things we know are untrue and then attacks DCP. If you truly think this is somehow comparable to your situation, then I say that's on you.

That's just creepy. I've been called a "liar" on the Internet by fauxpologists such as yourself many times and I don't want you people thinking you have the right to access my records or my husband's records via your bishop friends just because of your hysteria.


Everybody Wang Chung records were not accessed. Thus, to parallel this, instead of making things up about it, if you are lying about claims in your personal life, then there'd be no reason to follow up on your claims via church records. I'm sure you'd paint it, to your husband's bishop, as you've clearly attempted to say here, that Everybody Wang Chung's records were accessed. That simply is not true. The only people who have a complaint here, it seems, would be the names of the folks who went on the trip. If they find this all suspect, then so be it.

Yes, I'm so unfair to Dan that I've defended him on this forum on multiple occasions:

viewtopic.php?p=695278#p695278
viewtopic.php?p=624756#p624756


Every single person can be fair at times and unfair at other times. I think here you've demonstrated a tendency to be unfair. I know you think differently of yourself, but I plain disagree.

You, on the other hand, have never agreed with a criticism of him. Never. When people on here say anything critical about him, you show up with your terribad Danpologetics as sure as the sun will rise. So don't lecture me on fairness, because you don't know anything about it.


That is a bit unhinged wouldn't you say (and thus, demonstrating more unfairness)? You think I must agree with some piece of the hostility directed at Dan here in order to demonstrate fairness? Just because you can defend Dan against some of the absurd nastiness directed at him here, does not suggest you also are not unfair regarding your judgments of him in other cases. It could very well be reasoned that very many if not all of the complaints about Dan are unfair. And if that is the case, then I would be fair to defend him. It would be unfair, in fact, to join in on the attacks once in while, particularly if those particular attacks are unfair attacks.

you must realize there is much more complexity even in yourself than you are willing to grant.
Love ya tons,
Stem


I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
_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 »

stemelbow wrote:My goodness, guys you have a member of the 2nd quorum of the 70 posting on this very board. If you need someone to help you convict DCP and his friend contact him. No need, really. He's on this board. He might not a thing about it. But, we all know he must have the connections to do something if you truly felt it was an offense worthy of all of this belly-aching.

And this is why DCP and his bishop buddy should be very nervous. At least one General Authority knows of DCP's and his bishop friend's violation of the "conditions of use" in accessing the Church leadership directory to further DCP's personal vendetta against Wang Chung. I would not be at all surprised if some action is taken in the near future because of this (at the very least, against the rogue bishop).
"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 »

stemelbow wrote:As it is not one piece of data was given to Dan from the directory. There was no question asked to give Dan the names of any bishops who do appear. Nothing of the sort. You are making that up because it fits well with your own vendetta.

...

It's that we all know he is lying. And it's also the case that the bishop probably realizes Everybody Wang Chung is boasting anonymously about things we know are untrue and then attacks DCP.

...

Everybody Wang Chung records were not accessed.

None of the above matters with respect to DCP's bishop friend's violation of the Church's "conditions of use" in accessing the Church's leadership directory on DCP's behalf. That's what the OP is all about. I realize you are trying to create smokescreens to help out DCP, but it won't work -- the "conditions of use" are too carefully drafted to allow what DCP and his bishop buddy did ... and they know it, which is why at least DCP has gone completely "radio silent" on the issue.
"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)
_MsJack
_Emeritus
Posts: 4375
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 5:06 am

Re: Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologet

Post by _MsJack »

stemelbow wrote:It doesn't matter what strikes you as ridiculous. It matters what we know about it.

What we know is that it was a violation of the church's terms of use. The end.

stemelbow wrote:It's that we all know he is lying.

If you all "knew" he was lying, then there was no need for this ToU-violation search to begin with. I mean, good grief, violating the church's ToU and risking one's calling to make some kind of point against an anonymous nobody on a message board? Gods.

stemelbow wrote:Everybody Wang Chung records were not accessed. [SNIP] The only people who have a complaint here, it seems, would be the names of the folks who went on the trip. If they find this all suspect, then so be it.

And I'm sure Dan and the rogue bishop will be contacting all of these people to make sure they were okay with having their records pulled to check whether or not they might be some anonymous guy on a message board who's hostile to Dan, right?

I've demonstrated and referenced my ability to be fair and see the other side of these issues, that I'm not single-mindedly opposed to everything Dan does. You, on the other hand, have not demonstrated any ability to understand the perspective of others.

So take your accusations of deception and unfairness and vendetta and screw off, stem. And welcome back to my ignore list.

To those who are actually interested: I think I will take my concerns about church records and privacy to DH's bishop and report back on what he says. I may not see him again for a few weeks though. We'll see.
"It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13

My Blogs: Weighted Glory | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable | Twitter
_Darth J
_Emeritus
Posts: 13392
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:16 am

Re: Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologet

Post by _Darth J »

stemelbow wrote:
Darth J wrote:Very good, David. Your religion has a long and proud history of saying one thing in public, but doing another in private. So yeah, asserting that the LDS Church doesn't really care about the privacy of its members personal information is a great way to make your organization look like the real church of Jesus of Nazareth, rather than a vacuous corporate bureaucracy full of empty promises. Let it not be said that the Mormontologist obsession with insular navel gazing has any bearing on how seriously the outside world can be expected to take this religion. Isn't it wonderful? Isn't it marvelous?


You see, DJ. What would happen is, no one will do anything about this. So while you think you have sucha clever point, it just so happens that no information was ever taken and exchanged from the directory. Indeed, the only effort here was to show all the more that Everybody Wang Chung was laying. They both knew he was.


Nope. According to Peterson's story, his bishop friend did access a church database of personal information, for Peterson's personal anxiety about an anonymous nobody on a message board. That's a violation of the license granted by the Church for access to its member records.

That's so not relevant at all to the issue.


Sure it is.


Nope. Once the bishop accessed the member records database for Daniel Peterson's personal satisfaction, instead of official church business, the license granted by the Church was violated.

No. You are hopelessly wrong. The statement you are talking about is a legal document, and the fact that it is on a computer screen instead of paper is not relevant to its status as a legal "document." It is an end user license agreement. License agreements are a type of contract, which are interpreted according to the plain meaning of the language used. It is only if there is some ambiguity in the language---which is not present here---that evidence extraneous to the words of the agreement comes in to determine the intent of the parties. And you have no evidence whatsoever to support your naked, self-serving assertion that the "spirit" of this license agreement allows a non-bishop to try to track down an anonymous nobody over a personal grudge about message board posts. Let's look at what the Utah Supreme Court says about interpreting a contract, since the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Utah corporation sole:

Central Florida Investments, Inc. v. Parkwest Assoc., 2002 UT 3

¶12 In interpreting a contract, the intentions of the parties are controlling. Dixon v. Pro Image, Inc., 1999 UT 89, ¶ 13, 987 P.2d 48 (quotation omitted). "[W]e first look to the four corners of the agreement to determine the intentions of the parties." Ron Case Roofing & Asphalt v. Blomquist, 773 P.2d 1382, 1385 (Utah 1989); see also Reed v. Davis Co. Sch. Dist., 892 P.2d 1063, 1064-1065 (Utah Ct. App. 1995). If the language within the four corners of the contract is unambiguous, the parties intentions are determined from the plain meaning of the contractual language, and the contract may be interpreted as a matter of law. Dixon, 1999 UT 89 at ¶ 14, 987 P.2d 48 (citing Willard Pease Oil & Gas Co. v. Pioneer Oil & Gas Co., 899 P.2d 766, 770 (Utah 1995)). If the language within the four corners of the contract is ambiguous, however, extrinsic evidence must be looked to in order to determine the intentions of the parties. Id. In evaluating whether the plain language is ambiguous, we attempt to harmonize all of the contract's provisions and all of its terms. Id.; see also Buehner Block Co. v. UWC Assocs., 752 P.2d 892, 895 (Utah 1988). "An ambiguity exists where the language 'is reasonably capable of being understood in more than one sense.'" Dixon, 1999 UT 89 at ¶ 14, 987 P.2d 48 (quoting R & R Energies v. Mother Earth Indus., Inc., 936 P.2d 1068, 1074 (Utah 1997) (further quotation omitted)). Accordingly, we first look to the plain language within the four corners of the agreement to determine the intentions of the parties, and we attempt to harmonize the provisions in the pre-printed and addendum portions of the agreement.


Interesting that this is a legal case for you rather than something for the Church to determine.


Oh, so you mean that legal matters are really just issues about religious faith? Of course! Just like the good old days in Nauvoo!

There is nothing ambiguous about the following words:

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).


And after all of the commotion here, this is the best, I would say, statement that would convict them. So I say, go ahead and turn them in. We'll see what happens.


I think it's adorable to watch you fumble around, trying to make sense of the world like a not-very-bright second grader. By the way, David, you don't "convict" someone of violating a private license agreement. They should have told you about that between nap time and show-and-tell.

My goodness, guys you have a member of the 2nd quorum of the 70 posting on this very board. If you need someone to help you convict DCP and his friend contact him. No need, really. He's on this board. He might not a thing about it. But, we all know he must have the connections to do something if you truly felt it was an offense worthy of all of this belly-aching.


Oh, so like, nobody should care if complete strangers are trying to get access to church records to satisfy a vendetta about what gets posted on this message board? Church records that contain confidential (by the Church's own standards) information about many people on this board?

I commend you for your integrity, David. Please put your money where your mouth is, and post your real name (it's not David), your date of birth, address, and phone number, as well as that of your spouse and children.

According to Peterson's brazen statements on a public message board, he had a current bishop access data that belongs to the Church---THE CHRUCH'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY---for the purpose of satisfying Peterson's obsessive need to get parity of personal information about some anonymous nobody who says on some message board that his interpretation of Mormonism is different than Peterson's. Not only did this bishop (assuming without proof that Peterson's account is accurate) violate the Church's property rights, he violated the privacy of every person on that list Peterson asked him to cross-check.


No they've been clear that they did so because they already knew Everybody Wang Chung was lying. Therefore they also knew doing as they did would not harm anyone.


"Hey, hand waving and BS stories work in Sunday school! That means they will work in the real world, too!" If they already knew Everybody Wang Chung was lying, then there was no reason to have a bishop cross-check a list of customers from a third-party commercial entity with the Church's confidential member information. You don't need to research something you already know. Also, violating members' privacy by accessing their confidential church records to satisfy the personal whims of Daniel Peterson is harmful on its face. That's why the Church has the limited license in place.

So, the official church business for which Peterson had his bishop friend access confidential member information was ____________________________________________.

You seem to have forgotten your narrative, too. Chief Ambassador Liz has informed us that Peterson and his wife felt threatened. Remember?

So guess what, David? If you assert that Daniel Peterson's personal grudges against anonymous internet users are an official church purpose, and one of those people decides his privacy was invaded by an agent of the Church (a bishop) acting within the scope of his employment, guess who gets sued? I'll give you a hint: it rhymes with "Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."


Alrighty then. Go and persue a lawsuit, DJ. I mean I seriously wouldn't advocate you doing so for your sakes, but since you are so adamant you have such a wonderful case do it. Stop pouting about it and do it.


I wasn't on Daniel Peterson's tour where people paid him to teach them his interpretation of Mormon dogma. Thanks for your advice about what I should or shouldn't do, though. Maybe you could finger paint for me what I should do---you know, a medium that you are more suited to communicate with.

If anyone does "persue" a lawsuit over this, would you advocate that "faith is evidence" in support of his or her claims?

Your little cult of personality is so myopic that you hapless lapdogs have been going on for pages and pages about how wonderful it is to f*** the Church (by invading its property rights and potentially subjecting it to liability) to satisfy Daniel Peterson's personal vendettas. Why don't you just stop calling yourself "LDS" right now, and admit that you, Liz, and Alter Idem are members of the Church of Daniel Peterson?

EDIT: fixed a typo


Nice try. You can be so dramatic it's cute though.

I don't get why you don't stop pouting about harmless things and people as if your dramatic posture means something to someone. Just let things go, DJ, and I'd wager you'd have a much more delightful time.


Hmm, I seem to remember a certain ridiculous drama queen going by "stemelbow" saying he wouldn't post here anymore because he felt "threatened" in real life.

Your name, address, date of birth, and phone number. And that of your spouse and your kids. Put your money where your mouth is and post them.

Oh, and what's the name of this bishop friend of Peterson's? You know, the identity of a bishop is public information that is not confidential.

I wonder why Peterson felt it necessary to start circulating an amateur press release through private emails, and then authorize Chief Ambassador Liz to post it here, since this is no big deal and nobody would care. Or why he refuses to name the bishop who assisted him.
Last edited by Guest on Fri Mar 22, 2013 3:17 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Post Reply