Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Thus, Dan has endorsed "condemnation" and "Church discipline" for a professor, such as Dan, and a bishop, such as Dan's bishop friend, who inappropriately access Church records. It's crystal clear that Dan and his bishop friend did precisely this, based on Dan's own admissions. Does this mean that Dan is begging to be turned in, perhaps as part of the repentance process? Who knows, but I certainly found this latest statement from Dan very interesting, indeed.

I didn't read it that way. I don't think that Dan believes he did anything to "repent" of. It reads to me like he is challenging "John Smith" with his comments...that he is aware of exactly which case he is referring to, and is basically spelling out that if Mr. Smith reports these actions, upon Church leadership hearing the full story, not only will no action be taken, but it will be Mr. Smith, and any other folks who agreed with him, who will look foolish.

I think DCP is taking this very, very seriously, and I come to this conclusion because he has been so uncharacteristically mum about it. If DCP sincerely believed that he and his bishop friend did nothing wrong, then Dan would be declaring their innocence from the rooftops. But, other than the 3rd person statement he posted on your private message board and a vague response to a comment on his blog, DCP hasn't so much as made a peep. Even in his statement that you posted, DCP did not expressly address whether he or the bishop friend did anything wrong. This tells me that DCP is well aware that he has admitted to having his bishop friend violate the "conditions of use" in accessing the leadership directory at DCP's behest. At the time he asked his bishop friend, he probably didn't think it was a big deal, but he sure does now. And he's ducking for cover.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

So why was Dan accusing me of being a Judas when it came right down to me sending in that scenario and seeing who was going to look foolish?

This speaks volumes as to how DCP views what he did -- he knows he screwed up and just hopes it all goes away over time.

[_Yoda]

So why was Dan accusing me of being a Judas when it came right down to me sending in that scenario and seeing who was going to look foolish?

This speaks volumes as to how DCP views what he did -- he knows he screwed up and just hopes it all goes away over time.

Oh come on, Rock. He made a wry comment which could have been attributed to Judas. Agreed, it was a lame attempt at humor, but that is what it was.

I know that you viewed that thread as everyone attacking you, and I'm sorry you felt that way, but I honestly didn't feel that is what was happening. I, for one, NEVER attacked you. And there were others such as Alter and Ray, who were merely exasperated because you wouldn't listen to anyone else's opinion. I'm not going to belabor anymore discussion involving my board because I don't feel that MDB is the place for it. It is a private board, and, frankly, it hurts my feelings that you insist on constantly bringing up material from there. I want no part of a board war between my small private message space and MDB. Frankly, I have been more than fair to you, and still extend an open invitation for you to rejoin us at any time, if you choose to do so.

Back on topic. Did Dan blatantly try to stop you from writing Church authorities? No, he most certainly did not. Did ANY of us? (Those who you consider your "attackers" ).

The answer to that would also be a no. It was YOUR decision not to carry things any further.

The ONLY thing that Dan stated regarding that whole situation was that he refused to give you the name of his bishop friend. And this, I believe is completely understandable. You, on the other hand, kept badgering him for it!

What Dan told you, and I completely agree with this, is that if you wanted to report something, you had all the information you needed to do so. He openly, agreeably told you to mention his name. What he refused to do was release the name of his friend to you. His name has already been dragged through the mud on MDB and other websites. His friend's name, however, has not, and he wanted to, understandably keep it that way.

If this is still really such a burning issue with you, or anyone else, for God's sake, report it with the information you have. The Church leaders will find out who the bishop's name is, if he really has, in fact, done something wrong. There is no need for you, me, or anyone else to have that person's name.

I think DCP is taking this very, very seriously, and I come to this conclusion because he has been so uncharacteristically mum about it. If DCP sincerely believed that he and his bishop friend did nothing wrong, then Dan would be declaring their innocence from the rooftops. But, other than the 3rd person statement he posted on your private message board and a vague response to a comment on his blog, DCP hasn't so much as made a peep. Even in his statement that you posted, DCP did not expressly address whether he or the bishop friend did anything wrong. This tells me that DCP is well aware that he has admitted to having his bishop friend violate the "conditions of use" in accessing the leadership directory at DCP's behest. At the time he asked his bishop friend, he probably didn't think it was a big deal, but he sure does now. And he's ducking for cover.

Or maybe he has a full-time job and has also been traveling again.

The man is constantly accused of ten-million things that he has supposedly done unethically. Sometimes, it's hard to keep track!

I'm sure he is hoping the whole incident will die down, but not because he is "ducking for cover". I think it has more to do with him valuing his friend's privacy. And in that sense, yes, he probably is sorry he mentioned it in a public setting. But I don't think it is because he thought that either one of them did anything wrong.

[Guest]

So why was Dan accusing me of being a Judas when it came right down to me sending in that scenario and seeing who was going to look foolish?

Oh come on, Rock. He made a wry comment which could have been attributed to Judas. Agreed, it was a lame attempt at humor, but that is what it was.

So using a very serious and ominous statement from Christ can now be turned into humor.

I know that you viewed that thread as everyone attacking you, and I'm sorry you felt that way, but I honestly didn't feel that is what was happening

Said the person who created their own personal pity party thread.

I'm sure he is hoping the whole incident will die down, but not because he is "ducking for cover". I think it has more to do with him valuing his friend's privacy. And in that sense, yes, he probably is sorry he mentioned it in a public setting. But I don't think it is because he thought that either one of them did anything wrong.

You should be careful about those you blindly defend - and yes, your defense of Dan in this matter is blind obedience to Dan.

"Friends" can admit when a friend is in the wrong, infact, I would say it is the duty of a "friend" to help friends recognize errors in judgment. Dan is no friend to a Bishop who Dan "had" (implicit coercion) search Church records for Dans personal interests.

You are no friend to Dan for blindly defending him.

Dan is no friend to you for placing you this such a predicament.

[_Yoda]

You should be careful about those you blindly defend - and yes, your defense of Dan in this matter is blind obedience to Dan.

"Friends" can admit when a friend is in the wrong, infact, I would say it is the duty of a "friend" to help friends recognize errors in judgment. Dan is no friend to a Bishop who Dan "had" (implicit coercion) search Church records for Dans personal interests.

You are no friend to Dan for blindly defending him.

Dan is no friend to you for placing you this such a predicament.

Yes, I am aware of what a friend is, and what a good friend does. In this case, I don't believe there was any wrongdoing which occurred here. You will constantly think I am blindly defending Dan and I will consistently stand firm to the idea that I am not. We are at an impasse and neither is going to back down so I suggest we agree to disagree an move on.

I happen to know Dan personally, do you?

As far as I am aware, you don't know me, and you don't know Dan, so you are in no place to make a judgment call on what type of a friend I am.

Said the person who created their own personal pity party thread.

You know...when I read this, I was going to tell you to “F” off, or make another obscene suggestion. But instead, let me just suggest that you put me on Ignore and then we'll both be happy. You don't like me. I get it. I'm not that thrilled with you, either.

[_RockSlider]

Oh come on, Rock. He made a wry comment which could have been attributed to Judas. Agreed, it was a lame attempt at humor, but that is what it was.

Bull pucky ... I asked him if he was serious and if so, I would drop the whole thing ... no reply. This was not humor, he was dead serious.

I know that you viewed that thread as everyone attacking you, and I'm sorry you felt that way, but I honestly didn't feel that is what was happening. I, for one, NEVER attacked you.

I acknowledge this Liz, I'm not blaming you for what happened.

And there were others such as Alter and Ray, who were merely exasperated because you wouldn't listen to anyone else's opinion.

Ya know what Liz, this is a two way street (and why I left) All of my threads/posts of late were based on this same thing, every one insisting their opinion was correct and I was wrong. Funny thing is you come here and the tables are turned, the majory agree with what I was saying there.

Back on topic. Did Dan blatantly try to stop you from writing Church authorities? No, he most certainly did not. Did ANY of us? (Those who you consider your "attackers" ).

The hated Harmony was the only one to discourage me, as she also saw the possibility to in real life harm. But of course when it came down to the wire, Dan spoke out loudly with his Judas reference.

The answer to that would also be a no. It was YOUR decision not to carry things any further.

yep Harmony was right.

The ONLY thing that Dan stated regarding that whole situation was that he refused to give you the name of his bishop friend. And this, I believe is completely understandable. You, on the other hand, kept badgering him for it!

It's pretty obvious who Dan's buddy is. And with this person being on the executive staff of the new FARMS and this person's history of going after individuals, I'd suggest the Church would be very nervous/interested in this legal threat to their private information databases.

[_Yoda]

The hated Harmony...

Let's get one thing straight, Rock. Harmony is NOT hated, and certainly not by me. I love Harmony like a sister....and have for years. She doesn't even get mad at me when I beat her at Words with Friends.

It's pretty obvious who Dan's buddy is. And with this person being on the executive staff of the new FARMS and this person's history of going after individuals, I'd suggest the Church would be very nervous/interested in this legal threat to their private information databases.

You seem to think it's obvious who Dan's buddy is. I don't. You took an off-handed remark made by Ray and ran with it, Rock. I tried to tell you that on Geeks, too, but then, of course, all I was doing in that case was "attacking" you.

[_RockSlider]

You seem to think it's obvious who Dan's buddy is. I don't. You took an off-handed remark made by Ray and ran with it, Rock. I tried to tell you that on Geeks, too, but then, of course, all I was doing in that case was "attacking" you.

Liz, I already said I do not view you as having attacked me. As to the off-handed remark ... seems it was obvious to Ray as well.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The ONLY thing that Dan stated regarding that whole situation was that he refused to give you the name of his bishop friend. And this, I believe is completely understandable.

If DCP's bishop friend did nothing wrong, then why the secrecy? If holding the office of bishop is "public knowledge," as some of DCP's defenders claim, then why not reveal the name of his bishop friend? Curious how some, even bishops, desire privacy.

Or maybe he has a full-time job and has also been traveling again.

Nah, he's been posting plenty on his blog and in responding to topics on MADB -- he's just been real quiet on this particular topic. Hmm, wonder why ...

The man is constantly accused of ten-million things that he has supposedly done unethically. Sometimes, it's hard to keep track!

But this one is a no-brainer, and he knows it.

I'm sure he is hoping the whole incident will die down, but not because he is "ducking for cover". I think it has more to do with him valuing his friend's privacy.

Like he valued Wang Chung's privacy?

And in that sense, yes, he probably is sorry he mentioned it in a public setting. But I don't think it is because he thought that either one of them did anything wrong.

DCP has never said one way or the other if either he or the bishop friend did something wrong. And why is that? Because he knows that what he asked his bishop friend to do violated the Church's written "conditions of use." DCP should be squirming ....

[_Rollo Tomasi]

It's pretty obvious who Dan's buddy is. And with this person being on the executive staff of the new FARMS and this person's history of going after individuals, I'd suggest the Church would be very nervous/interested in this legal threat to their private information databases.

Perhaps I'm too dense to read between the lines, but are you saying that DCP's "bishop friend" is none other than Greg Smith? I know many of us have held this suspicion, but is there a reason you seem even more confident? Just curious.

EDITED to add: I see from Liz's above post that Ray A. made this suggestion -- does he have insider knowledge?