Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

[Guest]

NO confidential records were accessed. Member records are not what Dan's friend viewed. He viewed a directory of presently serving Bishops which is only accessible to Bishops. Member records cannot be viewed by other Bishops--EWC or those four men were not in danger of anyone looking at their confidential church membership records.

My goodness that is load of crap. Have you ever seen a Leadership Directory...I have and it used to be on a CD and you needed password. The information is all Bishops, Stakepresidents HOME PHONE, HOME ADDRESS, ETC.

if you are going to claim Leadership Directory is not private or confidential then you can not claim general membership records are confidential I.e. HOME PHONE, HOME ADRESS, ETC.

Liz has posted that Dans reason was only to find out if a bishop was on the and nothing more.

DAN NOR HIS BISHOP FRIEND HAD THE RIGHTT TO SEARCH THE RECORDS TO SEE IF A BISHOP WENT TO ISRAEL.

[_beastie]

Hey beastie!

LDS just do not seem to see a problem with this.

I can't imagine that this is true!

But..........maybe?


Peace,
Ceeboo

Well, of course I'm generalizing. Some LDS would see a problem with it. But in general, I don't think believing LDS see a problem with it. Why? Because the church is the unit of most value, not the individual. The purity of the church must be maintained, even at the cost of the individual. That's why people like Brigham Young and Joseph Smith felt justified in maligning individuals who threatened the hive - even if they lied to do so. (see: Martha Brotherton, whose sin was to tellthe truth about BY's polygamous proposal, and was then called a whore in the church newspaper. BY had her sealed to him after her death, anyway, to make the story even more disgusting. But it's only disgusting to someone of the contractual mindset.)

[_Ceeboo]

Well, of course I'm generalizing. Some LDS would see a problem with it. But in general, I don't think believing LDS see a problem with it. Why? Because the church is the unit of most value, not the individual. The purity of the church must be maintained, even at the cost of the individual.

Very, very Interesting!

Maybe!

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_sock puppet]

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.

I'm not sure you are sincere in your questions or if you are just hassling Liz, but I'm going to try again.

NO confidential records were accessed. Member records are not what Dan's friend viewed. He viewed a directory of presently serving Bishops which is only accessible to Bishops. Member records cannot be viewed by other Bishops--EWC or those four men were not in danger of anyone looking at their confidential church membership records.


Any Bishop who is concerned about a person who may be lying publicly on message boards, claiming to be a Bishop, but acting in a way that would be inappropriate for a Bishop and possibly misleading people, would be within his rights to check it out. He owes it to the church to look out for its well-being.


Now Darth, I've explained it clearly so if you keep going on about private confidential membership records being accessed by Dan's friend, I'm going to assume you aren't really interested in the truth and your just trying to fan flames against Dan.

If it was the 'altruistic' Mormon purpose Dan is feeding you, and your are obliging by posting for him, then Dan, having been a bishop, would know the proper protocol would have been to provide what he knew--before asking a friend to access limited database info--to the COB and let them handle it. Dan's "for the Church" claim is a claim that he is a rogue vigilante, going outside the proper LDS bureaucratic channels and protocols. But, that's just Dan's smokescreen. The reality is he convinced a bishop friend to access a restricted database, limited to use for that bishop's calling, for Dan's own personal crusade and vendetta purpose.

Shame on you Dan (a.k.a. Alter Idem).

[_stemelbow]

I would think most people wouldn't have a problem with it.

No private information was viewed by anyone including his bishop friend.

No information was transferred to anyone.

The problem is not that the bishop did something. It's that people are making it into something it is not for the sake of throwing a fit about a certain person, people or the Church.

But, if there truly is a case to be had here, why is no one doing anything about it? Why is the only thing I've seen done is about 12 threads created here, with one having 28 pages of complaining? Why fuss? Is it possibly because everyone here realizes that trying to sue the church, or to use this to go after DCP or his bishop friend will result in nothing?

[_lulu]

[b]NO confidential records were accessed.

[a] How do you know that?

[b]If they are not confidential why are they password protected and not just simply available to everyone on the internet?

Member records are not what Dan's friend viewed.

How do you know that?

He viewed a directory of presently serving Bishops which is only accessible to Bishops.

How do you know the search was that limited?

Any Bishop who is concerned about a person who may be lying publicly on message boards, claiming to be a Bishop, but acting in a way that would be inappropriate for a Bishop and possibly misleading people, would be within his rights to check it out.

Why didn't Dan pursue this with his own bishop instead of seeking out a friend who happened to be a bishop?

He owes it to the church to look out for its well-being.

Why didn't the Bishop in quesion refer the matter to his stake president instead of providing the information to DCP to release under his own name on the internet?

[_sock puppet]

[b]NO confidential records were accessed.

[a] How do you know that?

[b]If they are not confidential why are they password protected and not just simply available to everyone on the internet?

Member records are not what Dan's friend viewed.

How do you know that?

He viewed a directory of presently serving Bishops which is only accessible to Bishops.

How do you know the search was that limited?

Any Bishop who is concerned about a person who may be lying publicly on message boards, claiming to be a Bishop, but acting in a way that would be inappropriate for a Bishop and possibly misleading people, would be within his rights to check it out.

Why didn't Dan pursue this with his own bishop instead of seeking out a friend who happened to be a bishop?

He owes it to the church to look out for its well-being.

Why didn't the Bishop in quesion refer the matter to his stake president instead of providing the information to DCP to release under his own name on the internet?

A.I. doesn't know any of it. She's just doing a Charlie McCarthy bit to Dan's Edgar Bergen.

[_lulu]

A.I. doesn't know any of it. She's just doing a Charlie McCarthy bit to Dan's Edgar Bergen.

Dan stuck his fist where?

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Stem!

I would think most people wouldn't have a problem with it.

I would think (and hope) that the great majority of people would certainly have a problem with it. (My guess would be about 94%)

No matter what one chooses to call it (unethical, poor judgement, mistake, wrong, oops, etc), clearly, this type of behavior should not be supported, defended or excused.

To simply own it would be an enormous step towards it being over and done!

I find the aftermath of this bizarre scenario (what I am reading in this 28 page thread by some of the MDB members) to be as troubling (if not more so) as I do concerning the actions that triggered this entire mind-bending discussion.

Make no mistake, I have zero interest in attacking this bishop... or DCP.... or you.... or anybody else that is extending great efforts to defend this.

I am simply and only suggesting that we should be very cautious and proceed very slowly if we are going to defend such things. (Among the long list of reasons why, a mere one is that there are many who are watching/reading)

Support, compassion, forgive, advise, help......No problem!
Defend...... Problem!

Peace,
Ceeboo

[Guest]

I would think most people wouldn't have a problem with it.

You go sticking your fat ass into any password protected data base trying to learn anything to do with me and I'll have a big damned problem with it and then so will you. Got it[name deleted]?