Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

[_lulu]

Is it just me, or has Liz been posting alot lately?

[Guest]

Thank you in keeping this thread bumped near the top and allowing us to drive this point home over and over again.

Yes, and the point that is being driven home is that this place is determined to find anything they can to harass Dan over and try to keep his attention on MDB and his detractors here.

Look guys, you all are very smart people and engaging, but this is just turning into a farce. You'll never concede, and I'm not going to (because I understand the purpose of the directory) so, we'll just have to disagree on this.

Alter,

What is your view on the potential breach of trust between the tour company/leaders and their customers?
What I mean is, putting Everybody Wang Chung to one side for a moment, do the customers on that tour realise that they have had their Church records checked by someone who has no ecclesiastical authority or jurisdiction over them, simply because they happened to be on that tour and might be people who post things on a message board?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Thank you in keeping this thread bumped near the top and allowing us to drive this point home over and over again.

Yes, and the point that is being driven home is that this place is determined to find anything they can to harass Dan over and try to keep his attention on MDB and his detractors here.

A.I, this really is a slam dunk on DCP -- it's not just some "anything" out there. And I'm pretty sure DCP would rather you not continue to bump this thread to the top, but just keep quiet so it can eventually go away. Your defending the indefensible is not helping DCP at all.

[_Yoda]

Thank you in keeping this thread bumped near the top and allowing us to drive this point home over and over again.

The fact that there is such glee in "driving this point home" only further confirms Alter's point.

I can guarantee that if someone from your side of the aisle had done something similar, the attitude here would be MUCH different.

ETA--Case in point..

The majority of posters here accept that fact that Everybody Wang Chung lied, and they were all played.

Is there ANY type of calling Everybody Wang Chung on the carpet?

No, none!

As a matter if fact, he is given a pat on the back and is celebrated for his supposed cleverness.

[_Darth J]

Thank you in keeping this thread bumped near the top and allowing us to drive this point home over and over again.

The fact that there is such glee in "driving this point home" only further confirms Alter's point.

I can guarantee that if someone from your side of the aisle had done something similar, the attitude here would be MUCH different.

What side of what aisle is MrStakhanovite on, Liz?

[_Darth J]

The majority of posters here accept that fact that Everybody Wang Chung lied, and they were all played.

Is there ANY type of calling Everybody Wang Chung on the carpet?

No, none!

As a matter if fact, he is given a pat on the back and is celebrated for his supposed cleverness.

How do we know Everybody Wang Chung lied, Liz?

Also, will you please copy and paste the language from the LDS Church's license agreement that says a bishop can access confidential church records if a third party asks him to because the third party believes someone is lying regarding a private dispute on an internet message board? Thanks in advance.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Thank you in keeping this thread bumped near the top and allowing us to drive this point home over and over again.

The fact that there is such glee in "driving this point home" only further confirms Alter's point.

Sorry, Liz, but you're wrong. Those who defend Dan on this particular controversy, are defending the indefensible. The fact that a few of you simply don't 'get it' when it comes to the Church's very clear written "conditions of use," means that those of use with at least minimal reading and comprehension skills must continue to help those who, apparently, have neither.

I can guarantee that if someone from your side of the aisle had done something similar, the attitude here would be MUCH different.

Wrong again. If anyone (including myself) violated the Church's "conditions of use" to unmask an anonymous poster that he or she didn't like, then the attitude would be the same (and perhaps more harsh, because DCP's involvement in something like this, frankly, is not all that surprising).

[_Rollo Tomasi]

ETA--Case in point..

The majority of posters here accept that fact that Everybody Wang Chung lied, and they were all played.

Is there ANY type of calling Everybody Wang Chung on the carpet?

No, none!

As a matter if fact, he is given a pat on the back and is celebrated for his supposed cleverness.

You are assuming way too much here. I don't think we can know one way or the other whether Wang Chung lied about being on DCP's tour. We just don't have enough evidence. And if you think folks here are siding in greater numbers with DCP than Wang Chung, on who is telling the truth, you're grossly mistaken. Face it, DCP has zero credibility here (and little elsewhere, I might add -- at least that is how I interpret the purge at MI).

[_stemelbow]

Wrong again. If anyone (including myself) violated the Church's "conditions of use" to unmask an anonymous poster that he or she didn't like, then the attitude would be the same (and perhaps more harsh, because DCP's involvement in something like this, frankly, is not all that surprising).

I think the point you're missing is there was no unmasking. True, if Dan had unmasked anyone, inquired about whether someone really should be a bishop based on suspicion he is Everybody Wang Chung and all that, there might be a problem here. Instead none of that came about. Dan and others knew Everybody Wang Chung was lying. Nothing was compromised, as I see itd. The only thing you can hang your hope on here is the hypothetical of if there really was a bishop in the group. To you if there was, Dan would have unmasked him for us all, and gone after him or something.

In truth though, Stak did suggest he doesn't care if the bishop friend or DCP are disciplined in some way. he merely thinks Dan did something naughty and wants others to know DCP did something naughty. Not until yesterday did he acknowledge Everybody Wang Chung did somethign wrong, but even then he seems far more delighted that Dan did something wrong in order to make it an issue, than he cares the anyone here ever does a thing wrong. Why? Well, Dan he hates, and others here he simply doesn't care for.

[_Yoda]

The majority of posters here accept that fact that Everybody Wang Chung lied, and they were all played.

Is there ANY type of calling Everybody Wang Chung on the carpet?

No, none!

As a matter if fact, he is given a pat on the back and is celebrated for his supposed cleverness.

How do we know Everybody Wang Chung lied, Liz?

I don't really have time to post mine, Darth.

If I get a chance, I will. Let me state for the moment that I have read on several threads here that many posters here felt that Everybody Wang Chung had, in fact, lied, and that they had been played. They were also very good natured about the fact that they were played.

Also, will you please copy and paste the language from the LDS Church's license agreement that says a bishop can access confidential church records if a third party asks him to because the third party believes someone is lying regarding a private dispute on an internet message board? Thanks in advance.

I believe that you have actually copy/pasted that agreement here several times. Do it yourself.

Going from memory, the agreement states that a bishop, or other Church officer who has rightful access to the record, can access that record for Church related business.

Where everyone here has disagreed with is what constitutes Church business.

As a bishop, if Dan's friend was made aware that a member if the Church had been misrepresenting himself as a bishop on a public forum, and in so doing was making a mockery of that sacred office, that bishop may have very well felt justified in looking up some information in a database he has full rights to access to look into this.

From his standpoint, he is using the records as they can rightfully be used.

Is this a subjective call? Of course it is! 99% of what Church leaders do is based on their subjectivity.

How long have you been a member of the Church, Darth? You're a smart guy. I thought you would certainly be aware of that.