Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

[_ldsfaqs]

For those who missed the above post.... Dan nor the Bishop in question did anything at all wrong.

"Bishop's" contact information, names etc. are PUBLIC INFORMATION!!!!

A Bishop telling Dan there was no Bishop listed in his list is not "private" information, thus not breaking ANY RULE!

Oh how your bigotry is displayed for all to see.....

[_3sheets2thewind]

For those who missed the above post.... Dan nor the Bishop in question did anything at all wrong.

"Bishop's" contact information, names etc. are PUBLIC INFORMATION!!!!

A Bishop telling Dan there was no Bishop listed in his list is not "private" information, thus not breaking ANY RULE!

Oh how your bigotry is displayed for all to see.....

Ldsfaqs,

The CDOL may be accessed for reasons directly related to the Church.

Accessing to CDOL for Daniel Peterson's personal interests violated the conditions of use.



THE PUBLIC PUBLICATION OF A BISHOPS NAME IS THE GAWDDAMNEST STRAWMAN DIVERSION ANYONE COULD THINK OF.

[_ldsfaqs]

For those who missed the above post.... Dan nor the Bishop in question did anything at all wrong.

"Bishop's" contact information, names etc. are PUBLIC INFORMATION!!!!

A Bishop telling Dan there was no Bishop listed in his list is not "private" information, thus not breaking ANY RULE!

Oh how your bigotry is displayed for all to see.....

Ldsfaqs,

The CDOL may be accessed for reasons directly related to the Church.

Accessing to CDOL for Daniel Peterson's personal interests violated the conditions of use.

THE PUBLIC PUBLICATION OF A BISHOPS NAME IS THE GAWDDAMNEST STRAWMAN DIVERSION ANYONE COULD THINK OF.

Wrong.... The database can be accessed concerning "members" of the Church, as even the CHURCH itself did for me to track down my wife! My request was even more "personal" than Dan's, because you are again wrong because Dan had an entirely "reasonable" suspicion that someone was doing wrong, and he asked a Bishop to look into it, to see if there WAS a "Bishop" on his tour.

It's really not that complicated, and it's certainly not a straw-man. Bishop information is not private. Dan had every right to request a Bishop's information, if there was one.

Further, why would Wang Chung care if someone knew who he was?
A true "Bishop" or member of the Church is not afraid of the Light and Truth.
Only a liar and liars and people who know they are doing wrong would care that someone knew who they were. They have something to hide. And don't give me this crap about "privacy". A Bishop is not "private". Further, all of us who you people attack are not "private", your kind full of hate are the true kind of people who would try to hurt someone. Yet, we aren't quaking in our boots that you people know who we are....

[_3sheets2thewind]

Ldsfaqs,

Was your wife in the Church Directory of Leadership?

What number did you call to have information about your wife given to you, did you have a court order?

The Bishop had no business searching the records on Dans behalf

[_ldsfaqs]

Ldsfaqs,

Was your wife in the Church Directory of Leadership?

Nope, she was a member. I wasn't requesting information on my wife, I was requesting her "Bishop's" and Stake President's information.

What number did you call to have information about your wife given to you, did you have a court order?

Why would I need a court order to know the Bishop of a particular area for a particular member?
Bishop information is entirely within the rules to give.

The Bishop had no business searching the records on Dans behalf

Of course he did. Dan wanted information on a Bishop, a Bishop looked it up, period, end of story. Bishop information is not "private". What is so hard to understand about that? Even more so, it's not private if a member or Bishop suspects against church standards or other illegal behavior. So, either way you cut it, you're simply wrong.

I know in your bigotry you like to find any excuse to hate more, but can you just use your brain for a change?

The only way Dan would have "crossed the line" is if Dan had requested a "members" information, AND it didn't relate to the Church in any way. Of course, in this situation, it DID relate to the Church (church member doing wrong), and second no information was given other that to verify there was no Bishop listed, period. Again, Bishop Bishop Bishop..... Not private information, even if the Bishop had given it to Dan.

Again, you would have a case if it was a member, information was given, and it wasn't church related.
NONE of these conditions were met, thus your claim/charge fails the litmus test. Period!
Dan wasn't requesting "membership" status of someone in his tour, he was requesting a BISHOP'S information!!!!

[_Bazooka]

Of course he did. Dan wanted information on a Bishop, a Bishop looked it up, period, end of story. Bishop information is not "private". What is so hard to understand about that? Even more so, it's not private if a member or Bishop suspects against church standards or other illegal behavior. So, either way you cut it, you're simply wrong.

And this is where you are putting things in the wrong order.

Dan wanted information about his customers.

Dan couldn't check into their membership details using publicly available information, else that's what he would have done. So he got his pet Bishop to tap into the Church's private database to scour through their membership records, which is against the clear rules pertaining to the use of that database.

These were private individuals who were secretly checked out without their knowledge simply because they went on a private (nothing to do with the Church) trip that DCP was hosting. That is an infringement of their civil liberties and a breach of trust. It also an infringement of the duty of care the Church has to protect their private information from misuse.

[_Bazooka]

Please can we have a list of the clients that went on that trip?
I want to check if someone I know went on it.

That'd be okay, right?
If not, why not?

[_ludwigm]

Please can we have a list of the clients that went on that trip?
I want to check if someone I know went on it.

That'd be okay, right?
If not, why not?

Score.

Up to now, I've hesitated to take part.

I get the two things apart.
1. Using church's data.
The church has commandment/rules/formules (formulae? DAMN)
Anybody break them is a sinner.
Anybody forces another fellow member to break them - to sin - is satan.
DCP is satan.
QED.
(Disclaimer: for me, sin and satan doesn't exist, so every member may call DCP as they want, nonmembers shouldn't care)

2. A tour manager is sniffing after client's private data.
- Is these tours are for members only?
- Is these tours are for worthy members only? (pls define the word worthy...)
- Should the clients agree with everything said during the tour?

I tell You a real story:
Last year we (my wife and me) took part in a tour to "csíksomlyói búcsú", which is an annual Roman Catholic pilgrimage, when - and where - Catholics from all over Hungary and Romania gather.
The date is always the saturday of Pentecost.

A beautiful place for an altar and 250-300 thousand partaker - in the nature..
The empty space:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... C3%A1r.JPG

...and the crowded one:
http://cdn1.szon.hu/2011/09/11-Csiksomlyo.jpg

[off]Please show the pictures. You can get the feeling from them.
Wasn't enough, Shades?[/off ... ...]

All the data the tour managers asked was our name and age. The age only for distributing the rooms - storey or ground floor, distance from bathroom, size of room an place in restaurant.
They didn't ask if I am an ex-catholic atheist, if my wife is a Mormon - You know, Mormons call RCC as something negative (was I courteous enough?).

On this base, DCP was an unethical tour manager.
I would disable his certificate to make tours - if there is such thing in the country of unlimited opportunities...

by the way we have got the tour as a gift of some distant members of our family - they want to reciprocate something we did for them.
That week was a beautiful one - even we were not believers of the main event.

We wandered together with our group ~25 km - with brand new screws in my ankle.
We have eaten - and have drunk - a lot, we've seen beautiful landscapes (which have been decades before our country...)

Nobody investigated our identity.

[_Kishkumen]

This latest attempt to claim that DCP did nothing wrong, when as a tour guide he spied on the members of his tour by illicitly consulting restricted records with the help of an LDS bishop, is transparently stupid and lame.

Did he tell his tour group he was digging into their church records?

Did he ask their permission?

Did he inform the travel company running the tour that he would be checking their customer base against the records of the LDS Church?

If, as ldsfrags claims, Daniel was only looking at public information, then why did he have to get a bishop to check the records for him?

Is the bishop in question even Daniel's own bishop, or was he just a friend of Daniel's who happens to be a bishop?

So, why did he not ask his own bishop for this information? Why not go with the person who is assigned as his steward if this is all on the up and up, as it were?

I'm sorry, but this Danpologetic is transparently dumb.

[_MsJack]

ldsfaqs ~ I just reported your response to me for removal to Telestial. The rules of this forum say "No blatant or otherwise obvious personal attacks allowed."

Try responding to me again, only this time without calling me stupid.