Rollo Tomasi wrote: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 ....
Actually he maintains that he has not violated his personal morals in this matter, that he has done nothing wrong. Just because the Church has a legal privacy policy that may or may not have been violated does not matter. His higher morals takes precedence. Just because violation of a legal Church policy might bring consequences does not mean that anything done was actually wrong. Just another case of personal persecution based on political correctness. To the righteous, God's ways always take precedence over man's ways.
RockSlider wrote:Actually he maintains that he has not violated his personal morals in this matter, that he has done nothing wrong.
But has he said one way or the other whether his bishop friend violated the "conditions of use" by accessing the leadership directory on Dan's behalf? This seems like a no-brainer to me, but I'm curious if Dan has spoken about it.
"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)
RockSlider wrote: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 have insider knowledge?
No, Ray doesn't have "insider knowledge". Dan has not shared with any of us who his bishop friend's name is. He hasn't volunteered it, and, surprise, surprise, those of us who are his friends, have never felt the need or desire to ask.
Rollo wrote: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.
I already explained this in another post. DCP simply did not want his friend's name dragged through the mud on message boards like his name has been dragged. I know you and the rest of Dan's critics refuse to believe me, but it is the truth, regardless.
Looks to me that Daniel really stepped in it. I think Rollo has hit the nail on the head, and Rockslider's account of the discussion on Liz's board well confirms Rollo's view.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
RockSlider wrote:Actually he maintains that he has not violated his personal morals in this matter, that he has done nothing wrong.
But has he said one way or the other whether his bishop friend violated the "conditions of use" by accessing the leadership directory on Dan's behalf? This seems like a no-brainer to me, but I'm curious if Dan has spoken about it.
Actually, yes, Dan has stated that he didn't feel his friend did anything wrong. He has also said that if he thought he was asking anything inappropriate, he would not have asked his friend the question.
Rollo Tomasi wrote: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?
Seems the obvious choice.
I know many of us have held this suspicion, but is there a reason you seem even more confident? Just curious.
No, pure speculation on my part.
EDITED to add: I see from Liz's above post that Ray A. made this suggestion -- does have insider knowledge?
Yes, Ray was the first one to let this slip. I asked him if he had other knowledge of this, he replied that he did not. It's just funny that Ray had the same "speculation".
Whatever the case may be, the Church would likely be interested in the possibility of a key player in an organization with a reputation of being vigilanties being suspected of abuse. Ouch!
liz3564 wrote:DCP simply did not want his friend's name dragged through the mud on message boards like his name has been dragged. I know you and the rest of Dan's critics refuse to believe me, but it is the truth, regardless.
OR could it be that Dan doesn't want his bishop friend to be busted by his file leaders for inappropriately accessing the Church's leadership directory? Methinks the latter.
"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 wrote:But has he said one way or the other whether his bishop friend violated the "conditions of use" by accessing the leadership directory on Dan's behalf? This seems like a no-brainer to me, but I'm curious if Dan has spoken about it.
Actually, yes, Dan has stated that he didn't feel his friend did anything wrong. He has also said that if he thought he was asking anything inappropriate, he would not have asked his friend the question.
But when Dan said this, was he speaking in the context of the Church's written "conditions of use" for accessing the directory? Or was it just some broad "he didn't do anything wrong" comment?
"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 wrote:EDITED to add: I see from Liz's above post that Ray A. made this suggestion -- does have insider knowledge?
Yes, Ray was the first one to let this slip. I asked him if he had other knowledge of this, he replied that he did not. It's just funny that Ray had the same "speculation".
Actually, many of us here have been speculating the same thing.
Whatever the case may be, the Church would likely be interested in the possibility of a key player in an organization with a reputation of being vigilanties being suspected of abuse. Ouch!
I agree 110%!
"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)
liz3564 wrote:DCP simply did not want his friend's name dragged through the mud on message boards like his name has been dragged. I know you and the rest of Dan's critics refuse to believe me, but it is the truth, regardless.
OR could it be that Dan doesn't want his bishop friend to be busted by his file leaders for inappropriately accessing the Church's leadership directory? Methinks the latter.
