Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

[_Darth J]

So guess what, Ray? I just registered for the LDS account for which you provided a link. I'm signed in right this moment while I'm posting this. And guess what I found there?

https://ldsaccount.LDS.org/sign-in/go/h ... ionId=6698

Application Rights Issues

Why don't I have access to a site or specific functionality within sites?
Some sites and some functionality of sites are reserved for LDS Church membership. If you are a member and feel you should have access to these sites and features please make sure you have added your membership information to your LDS Account profile.
You may not be listed in a role that grants access. Rights for functionality may be limited to only authorized individuals based on a specific role. For example, an individual who has been assigned the role of a Bishop in Church systems will have access to some sites that other members may not.

Isn't that the funniest thing?

[_RayAgostini]

How about that, Ray? If that was where Peterson was having his bishop friend cross-check third party commercial data, then it makes no sense at all for Peterson to need to go to a bishop friend to access it for him.

This is what, eleven different stories from the Mormontology brigade now?

It's possible DCP wasn't aware of this, and that all he had to do was sign up, and he could have had access to the same information, which wasn't restricted to "bishops only". But I'm fully aware that you're not one for "nuances" in human behaviour, nor making any effort to understand what you perceive as the perennial "wrong doing" of "apologists".

The hounds on the Contempt and Defamation Board made their minds up long ago, and finding an honest soul among them is as fruitless as trying to find a Saint in Sodom.

I do give some kudos to "Tom" for at least raising the issue, but the silence following his post was deafening.

[Guest]

How about that, Ray? If that was where Peterson was having his bishop friend cross-check third party commercial data, then it makes no sense at all for Peterson to need to go to a bishop friend to access it for him.

This is what, eleven different stories from the Mormontology brigade now?

It's possible DCP wasn't aware of this, and that all he had to do was sign up, and he could have had access to the same information, which wasn't restricted to "bishops only". But I'm fully aware that you're not one for "nuances" in human behaviour, nor making any effort to understand what you perceive as the perennial "wrong doing" of "apologists".

The hounds on the Contempt and Defamation Board made their minds up long ago, and finding an honest soul among them is as fruitless as trying to find a Saint in Sodom.

I do give some kudos to "Tom" for at least raising the issue, but the silence following his post was deafening.

Ray, I am now registered for that site. Walk me through step by step how I can look up a list of random names to see if the people I am searching for are LDS bishops.

[_Kishkumen]

The hounds on the Contempt and Defamation Board made their minds up long ago, and finding an honest soul among them is as fruitless as trying to find a Saint in Sodom.

I guess Lot didn't count. That's why the angels let him fry in Sodom.

[_Darth J]

Now why is it that former bishop and SCMC appointee Daniel Peterson would not have been aware of this website that Ray easily found with Google? Did we ever get some idea of why that is plausible?

[_Darth J]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but for “F”'s sake, how many self-serving, ad hoc assumptions is one man entitled to?

[_RayAgostini]

Oh, and thanks for explaining the nuances to me. I'm sure that a taxi driver from Australia is in a better position to understand what a contract under Utah law means than someone who has practiced law in Utah.

Funny you should mention that. I have this as my sig. line on Liz's private board:

"There, you're just a taxi driver with a philosophical bent that very few people care about." - harmony, eschewing lower-class occupations.

At least you all sing the same tune. So one thing I've ascertained is that apostates and anti-Mormons like you and harmony don't have much respect for taxi drivers. lol.

[_Yoda]

I realize that most of you here just want me to “F” off. Frankly, that's how I feel about some of you, too (ahem, Lulu, Darth).

However, I do feel that I explained myself pretty clearly to Harmony in the following post from my board. I am sharing this in hopes that those if you here who are still my friends, will at least understand where I'm coming from.

Oh, and for the record, Harmony and I are still good friends even though we disagreed on this issue. We didn't tear each other down, or try to twist each other's words. Imagine that! We were grown ups who were simply able to agree to disagree. Amazing!

Did it include a bishop accessing pass coded material he had every right to access? Yes, it did. That was my point.

And my point was: he didn't have the right to access that material. There was no reason to access that material, at all, for Dan. Dan's request was not legit. The bishop was out of line.

I think that this is where the impasse is. Why is everyone assuming that dan's bishop friend accessed the database to merely placate Dan?

I'm not saying that his action certainly DID placate Dan, but I don't think that Dan's friend would have accessed the database if placating Dan was the only reason for doing it.

And, it doesn't seem like I am the only one thinking this way, because Ray, Alter, and Stem have all reached the same conclusion.

I understand that you, Rollo, Darth, and Kish think its BS and that is certainly your choice. But the fact remains that there were legitimate reasons, Church related reasons, for his friend to check that information.

If Everybody Wang Chung really had been a bishop, and he had been conducting himself in a way that he shouldn't have, then his friend would need Everybody Wang Chung's real name to report him through proper channels.

All of you assume that if Dan's friend had discovered Everybody Wang Chung's real information that he would have turned that information over to Dan. Now , if he did, indeed do that, then yes, he WOULD HAVE been misusing the database. But that is not what happened. And unlike what you, Kish, and Darth et. al. assume, I don't think that would have happened!

Here is why. Dan's friend did NOT allow Dan to view or access the database himself. He looked up the information and gave Dan a yes or no response. This indicates to me that he was being careful with the information he had access to and was making every effort possible to follow the rules.

This is exactly what Dan, Alter, Stem and I have been getting at and trying to explain ad nauseam.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but for f***'s sake, how many self-serving, ad hoc assumptions is one man entitled to?

Only Dan's proxies are making them (wise on his part), which means any trick can and will be employed.

[Guest]

Oh, and thanks for explaining the nuances to me. I'm sure that a taxi driver from Australia is in a better position to understand what a contract under Utah law means than someone who has practiced law in Utah.

Funny you should mention that. I have this as my sig. line on Liz's private board:

"There, you're just a taxi driver with a philosophical bent that very few people care about." - harmony, eschewing lower-class occupations.

At least you all sing the same tune. So one thing I've ascertained is that apostates and anti-Mormons like you and harmony don't have much respect for taxi drivers. lol.

Yes, Ray. Everyone who thinks Joe Smith's Frontier Tall Tales might not be true are all of one mind and one heart. At our annual meeting where we sacrifice kittens to Lucifer, we make a blood oath to persecute taxi drivers first, then Mormons.