Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

[_Darth J]

Stem, why do you think Dan has stopped posting here? It's not "posturing," it's just reality.

We had a conversation about it. He advised me to stop too.

He suggested, essentially, people here won't listen. They simply have no interest in discussing truth, per se, but throwing fits about certain LDS folks. When LDS folks who are defenders, if you will, respond with their thoughts, the replies aren't really about the thoughts, per se, but about the LDS person. There is very little open, thoughtful discussion to be had here. When it's attempted, a gang of folks seem to ruin it before it gets started.

'

I will listen! I will happily listen to the following:

The official LDS church business that is within the scope of the duties of a ward bishop, for which Peterson's anonymous bishop friend accessed confidential member records, was ________________________________.

[_stemelbow]

Here let's review since the frothing at the mouth continues:

The records of the Church are confidential, whether they exist on paper, in computers, or in other electronic media. These include membership records, financial records, notes of meetings, official forms and documents (including records of disciplinary councils), and notes made from private interviews.

Great. So not one member record, not one financial record, not one meeting note, not one official form and document was used here.

Leaders and clerks are to safeguard Church records by handling, storing, and disposing of them in a way that protects the privacy of individuals. Leaders ensure that information that is gathered from members is (1) limited to what the Church requires and (2) used only for approved Church purposes.

Okay so all the information gathered that was accessible here was limited to what the Church required and was not used. Remember no information was seen or accessed.

Information from Church records and reports may be given only to those who are authorized to use it.

yessir.

Information that is stored electronically must be kept secure and protected by a password (citation omitted). Leaders ensure that such data is not used for personal, political, or commercial purposes. Information from Church records, including historical information, may not be given to individuals or agencies conducting research or surveys.

No data was ever used in the least. No data or information was given to anyone.

its clear, you ugys are throwing a fit because you have nothing better to attack Dan on at this present time.

This continual bumping is delightful though.

[_stemelbow]

I will listen! I will happily listen to the following:

The official LDS church business that is within the scope of the duties of a ward bishop, for which Peterson's anonymous bishop friend accessed confidential member records, was ________________________________.

Whose confidential records did he access? Do you think you really know what he did?

[_Molok]

Stem, when we say "access the records" we are referring to the act of searching through a membership directory to find matches for names. By the way Stem, what about the people on the trip? They didn't give their consent in any way to have their names run through church records. Are you sure this doesn't violate their privacy? Were all of the people who's names were run Mormons?

[_Ceeboo]

Stem,

If you are simply unable to stand (for whatever reason), perhaps sitting in utter silence would be a much better choice.
Peace,
Ceeboo

Just in case you hadn't seen it or considered it!

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_lulu]

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.

However, my active posting days here are over.

I'm feeling played.

Care to address what I posted on the actual topic,

I did.

[_Darth J]

I will listen! I will happily listen to the following:

The official LDS church business that is within the scope of the duties of a ward bishop, for which Peterson's anonymous bishop friend accessed confidential member records, was ________________________________.

Whose confidential records did he access? Do you think you really know what he did?

I don't know what anyone really did or did not do, but I know what Peterson claims he had an anonymous bishop friend do.

Here is the language of the license agreement you are conveniently omitting, stemelbow:

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).

[_Darth J]

Here let's review since the frothing at the mouth continues:

The records of the Church are confidential, whether they exist on paper, in computers, or in other electronic media. These include membership records, financial records, notes of meetings, official forms and documents (including records of disciplinary councils), and notes made from private interviews.

Great. So not one member record, not one financial record, not one meeting note, not one official form and document was used here.

Leaders and clerks are to safeguard Church records by handling, storing, and disposing of them in a way that protects the privacy of individuals. Leaders ensure that information that is gathered from members is (1) limited to what the Church requires and (2) used only for approved Church purposes.

Okay so all the information gathered that was accessible here was limited to what the Church required and was not used. Remember no information was seen or accessed.

Information from Church records and reports may be given only to those who are authorized to use it.

yessir.

Information that is stored electronically must be kept secure and protected by a password (citation omitted). Leaders ensure that such data is not used for personal, political, or commercial purposes. Information from Church records, including historical information, may not be given to individuals or agencies conducting research or surveys.

No data was ever used in the least. No data or information was given to anyone.

its clear, you ugys are throwing a fit because you have nothing better to attack Dan on at this present time.

This continual bumping is delightful though.

Conveniently omitted from the above:

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).

[_hobo1512]

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.

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.

Ok, we have gone from "majority" to "many" with not statistical proof provided. Hardly a credible statement. Just sayin.....

I will ask you the same question I asked Harmony on another thread, which she failed to answer.

If I go to my friend who happens to be the branch manager of the bank you use, and ask him to look up your information, is that wrong?

If I ask him what your balances are, is that wrong?

If it is wrong, then you have the answer to the DCP dilemma.
If it is unethical, then you have the answer to the DCP dilemma.
If he accessed the information outside of the banks intended purpose, then you have the answer to the DCP dilemma.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

True, but the "attempt" to unmask was enough to violate the "conditions of use."

There was no attempt to unmask at all.

There you go again ... pulling out the "obtuse" card to avoid reality.

Dan violated the conditions of use. Not his bishop friend.

Actually, it's the other way around -- the bishop friend violated the "conditions of use" when he, the bishop with access, accessed the leadership directory. Dan was simply wrong (and unethical because he knew the bishop would violate the "conditions of use" when the bishop accessed the document on Dan's behalf).

uh...no one's anonymity has been compromised at all.

Only due to luck -- the problem is Dan's attempt to unmask an anonymous poster here through nefarious means.

You are over-reacting if that is truly your point. Are you seriously afraid someone will find out who you are and then will do something about it?

Trust me, I know of what I speak. It's happened before and will likely happen again (particularly if folks are willing to go to the lengths Dan did to get in real life information of an anonymous poster).

And understand this, Stem -- nothing done or not done by Wang Chung has ANYTHING to do with DCP's admission that he had his bishop friend violate the Church's extremely clear "conditions of use" in order to find in real life information of a Church member for DCP.