Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

[_Darth J]

Here's a fun hypothetical:

I am in fact a current member of the LDS Church. And I hereby claim to be a full tithe payer.

I bet a lot of people think I am lying about the second statement.

Is Daniel Peterson now justified in having his anonymous bishop friend look up my member records to see whether I am a full tithe payer?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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

We had a conversation about it.

This explains why you are his surrogate in defending the indefensible. He's not willing to do it himself (even on other bb's).

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.

Sounds like Dan -- ever the martyr. He ran away every time we'd point out that his claimed "truth" was just a pile of rubbish.

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.

Wrong. You're thinking of MADB, where the favorite tactic (perfected at FARMS and FAIR) is to attack the messenger, rather than address the substance of the message (a good recent example is Greg Smith's "essay" about John Dehlin). You want thoughtful discussion? This is the place.

[_Yoda]

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 ________________________________.

To confirm whether or not a fellow judge in Israel was making a mockery of the Church on a public forum.

[_Yoda]

Wrong. You're thinking of MADB, where the favorite tactic (perfected at FARMS and FAIR) is to attack the messenger, rather than address the substance of the message (a good recent example is Greg Smith's "essay" about John Dehlin). You want thoughtful discussion? This is the place.

Um..yeah. That's why everyone has been so civil to me.

[_3sheets2thewind]

NVM

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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 ________________________________.

To confirm whether or not a fellow judge in Israel was making a mockery of the Church on a public forum.

Wait a sec. I thought DCP's "official" reason for seeking his bishop friend's help was to get evidence that Wang Chung had lied about being on DCP's tour. Are you now admitting that the real reason was so DCP could stop Wang Church from (a) being a bishop, or (b) mocking the Church? This just gets curiouser and curiouser. You and Dan have to get your stories straight.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Wrong. You're thinking of MADB, where the favorite tactic (perfected at FARMS and FAIR) is to attack the messenger, rather than address the substance of the message (a good recent example is Greg Smith's "essay" about John Dehlin). You want thoughtful discussion? This is the place.

Um..yeah. That's why everyone has been so civil to me.

Takes two to tango, sis.

[_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 ________________________________.

To confirm whether or not a fellow judge in Israel was making a mockery of the Church on a public forum.

Is that within the scope of a bishop's job presiding over his ward?

Where can I confirm that it is part of a bishop's job to undertake his own anonymous investigation of such a claim, rather than reporting it to the Church?

Liz, if a bishop is entitled to access confidential member records to investigate anyone who claims to be a bishop, irrespective of any priesthood authority over that person, how is the bishop not entitled to investigate any member of the Church anywhere? And exactly why would the LDS Church impose its own standard of confidentiality, and impose a legal, revocable license agreement for access to that data, if it is perfectly fine for LDS bishops to be de facto ecclesiastical vigilantes?

As a side note, as much as I appreciate your Freudian slip, Everybody Wang Chung was making a mockery of Daniel Peterson, not "the Church." You have made it very clear that the distinction is very unclear for you, but I wanted to point it out nonetheless.

[_Darth J]

So, anyway, Liz:

I'm a member of record of the LDS Church. I say things on this internet forum that are not faith-promoting. And I hereby claim that not only am I a full tithe payer, I have a current temple recommend.

Any random bishop anywhere in the LDS Church is now entitled to search my confidential member records to investigate my claims. Right?

[_lulu]

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 ________________________________.

To confirm whether or not a fellow judge in Israel was making a mockery of the Church on a public forum.

Dan to his own dear bishop:

I've become aware that a person who claims on the internet that he is a bishop is saying bad things about the church.

This person also claims that he was with me this summer on my tour to Israel.

What do you think I should do?

Dan's dear bishop repies:

Let me check with my leaders and get back to you with some advice.


See how easy that is.