Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

[_Yoda]

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?

I certainly hope that Everybody Wang Chung is lying and that he is not a bishop. Because, if he is, speaking for the Church in jest is a really stupid thing to do.

[_Bazooka]

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?

I certainly hope that Everybody Wang Chung is lying and that he is not a bishop. Because, if he is, speaking for the Church in jest is a really stupid thing to do.

Why?

[_Yoda]

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.

Oh, dear. It seems that your reading comprehension is slipping. I said that bishops were allowed to use Church records to report conduct of other bishops.

[_Darth J]

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?

I certainly hope that Everybody Wang Chung is lying and that he is not a bishop. Because, if he is, speaking for the Church in jest is a really stupid thing to do.

I think it would help your persuasiveness about this matter if you would decide on one standard of conduct and stick to it.

Are LDS bishops entitled to police LDS members at large regarding whether the member's conduct is consistent with church standards?

(a) Yes

(b) No

[_Darth J]

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.

Oh, dear. It seems that your reading comprehension is slipping. I said that bishops were allowed to use Church records to report conduct of other bishops.

I'm aware that you said that. And I am inviting you to demonstrate where the LDS Church said that.

[_Yoda]

I'm stepping down from the witness stand, Darth. I have more important things to do today.

[_Darth J]

I'm stepping down from the witness stand, Darth. I have more important things to do today.

Gee, Liz. You started a whole thread about this, and you have gone on for pages about this. Kind of odd that it's when you paint yourself into a corner that you suddenly have more important things to do.

by the way, in your analogy, you are being Peterson's advocate, not a witness for him.

[_Stormy Waters]

For those who approve of this behavior please state clearly what one can say before becoming eligible for this type of search.

Or is it simply that critics who post anonymously are fair game if they diclose information that makes them potetinally identifiable?

Because honestly if it's fair game to use the church database this way. Whatever. The least you could do is own it though.

[Guest]

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.

Hmm, are you sure about that, here is what you and or Dan stated in another post

8c. The purpose of comparing the list of tour participants was to see if there was a way to prove that a currently-serving bishop posting as Everybody Wang Chung had not come to Israel.

We have to take your words for that Dan's reasoning is prove if there was Bishop on the tour, so a Bishop was or was not on the Tour.

Knowing whether of not a Bishop was on tour is 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, because ________________________________. (don't change your answer, Dan has already admitted that the purpose was just to find out if a bishop was on tour)

And now lets look at your own words

there was sufficient cause for Dan to feel threatened.

Wrong Wrong Wrong, Dan via your words stated quite the opposite

After all, Dan and his wife had both spent significant time with the folks on that tour. If Everybody Wang Chung, as a serving bishop, was actually in a position to stalk Dan, or significantly have the upper-hand in knowing quite a bit more about him than Dan knows about Everybody Wang Chung, then yes, I can see where Dan's bishop friend would feel that falls under the guise of Church business.

[/quote]

So what you are saying is "It is not fair."

Dan needs information to level the "internet battlefield" and that falls flatly and snugly within the Official Business of the LDS Church....thanks for clearly it all up.

[_Yoda]

I'm stepping down from the witness stand, Darth. I have more important things to do today.

Gee, Liz. You started a whole thread about this, and you have gone on for pages about this. Kind of odd that it's when you paint yourself into a corner that you suddenly have more important things to do.

by the way, in your analogy, you are being Peterson's advocate, not a witness for him.

It seems your reading comprehension is slipping again, Darth. I didn't start this thread. Stak did.

As far as my analogy goes...it's my analogy, not yours. You were playing Mr. Bigshot Attorney rattling off question after question, consistently trying to twist everything I was saying.

It sounds like maybe things are slow at the law firm, Darth.

Personally, this is my Spring Break and I don't need that kind of BS.

I said what I wanted to say.

If you feel like there was a wrong committed, put up or shut up. Report it.

As far as the reason I'm leaving the thread....my son just got home from school, and spending time with him take far more precedence than spending time with you.