Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

[_Darth J]

Liz:

You have said on this forum that you are related to a current LDS apostle.

Some random member of the Church might dispute that claim, especially in light of some things you have said on this forum that are not consistent with church teachings (I can be more specific if you would like).

It would be perfectly fine for any random member of the LDS Church to get any random bishop to access your confidential member records to see if you really are who you say you are. Right?

[_Yoda]

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?

If you are in a leadership role, such as a Bishop or higher, yes.

Also, isn't part of the reason so many here are anonymous is due to their fear of the very thing you suggested?

[_Yoda]

Liz:

You have said on this forum that you are related to a current LDS apostle.

Some random member of the Church might dispute that claim, especially in light of some things you have said on this forum that are not consistent with church teachings (I can be more specific if you would like).

It would be perfectly fine for any random member of the LDS Church to get any random bishop to access your confidential member records to see if you really are who you say you are. Right?

No, because I am not a bishop, and I am not "apologizing on behalf of the Church" for various things in a public forum.

I have never, in my comments on this board, claimed that I was representing the Church in any way.

[_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?

If you are in a leadership role, such as a Bishop or higher, yes.

Oh, really? Please copy and paste the language from the EULA that provides for this exception.

Also, isn't part of the reason so many here are anonymous is due to their fear of the very thing you suggested?

Probably. That's why we need self-appointed church detectives to smoke them out.

[_Yoda]

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.

I wasn't referring to the disparaging things he said about Dan. I was referring to him speaking as a bishop apologizing on behalf of the Church.

[_Darth J]

Liz:

You have said on this forum that you are related to a current LDS apostle.

Some random member of the Church might dispute that claim, especially in light of some things you have said on this forum that are not consistent with church teachings (I can be more specific if you would like).

It would be perfectly fine for any random member of the LDS Church to get any random bishop to access your confidential member records to see if you really are who you say you are. Right?

No, because I am not a bishop, and I am not "apologizing on behalf of the Church" for various things in a public forum.

I have never, in my comments on this board, claimed that I was representing the Church in any way.

Well, I for one look forward to you citing the language in the EULA wherein bishops are entitled to access confidential member records if they suspect another bishop---over whom they have no priesthood authority---is involved.

Also, Liz, do you think that Everybody Wang Chung was being rhetorical about the conduct expected of members of the LDS Church? Or did you read those posts as actually claiming authority to speak on behalf of the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Do you feel that any rational adult would conclude that he intended the second interpretation?

[Guest]

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.

I wasn't referring to the disparaging things he said about Dan. I was referring to him speaking as a bishop apologizing on behalf of the Church.

Oh, dear. It seems that your ad hoc excuse making has contradicted itself again.

Your reasoning for one anonymous bishop being justified in accessing confidential member records is that it is "official Church bishop" to evaluate the online conduct of other members of the Church.

That being your reasoning, Everybody Wang Chung, as a bishop, would be justified in commenting on how Daniel Peterson's conduct was inconsistent with the behavior expected of members of the Church. Because bishops are entitled to police LDS members at large.

How is it again you know that Everybody Wang Chung is not a bishop?

[_Yoda]

Oh, really? Please copy and paste the language from the EULA that provides for this exception.

This is where you and I will always remain at an impasse. Not everything needs to be spelled out in the EULA. When a bishop is called, he is permitted to use his judgment as to what dies and does not constitute Church business.

If you feel that strongly that something was violated, then by all means, put your money where your mouth is and report it to Salt Lake. If Church Headquarters determine that what this bishop did was not in accordance with Church business, then I will admit I was wrong.

[Guest]

Oh, really? Please copy and paste the language from the EULA that provides for this exception.

This is where you and I will always remain at an impasse. Not everything needs to be spelled out in the EULA.

Oh yes, it most certainly does. The EULA is a legal document. The impasse, Liz, only exists because of your determination to ignore objective reality.

When a bishop is called, he is permitted to use his judgment as to what dies and does not constitute Church business.

That would render the license agreement utterly meaningless.

[_lulu]

Also, isn't part of the reason so many here are anonymous is due to their fear of the very thing you suggested?

Let me check with chino blanco on that and get back to you.