Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

[_Yoda]

Ray, I apologize again for that post I made 16 months ago (for anyone keeping track like Liz, this is now my 6 public apology to Ray) It was done in anger and against my better judgement. It certainly doesn't represent the kind of person I'm trying be. I'm embarrased and feel ashamed that I stooped so low. I ask for your forgiveness for my actions.

Ray, I guess you're not going to accept my olive brance or even give me an apology for the mean and hateful things you have said about me and my family recently, and in the past.

But I want you to know that I'm always here if you change your mind.

For what it's worth, I'm glad you apologized, and I think it was a nice apology that should be accepted.

Contrary to popular belief, I am not your enemy.

[_Yoda]

In summary, the official church business that is within the scope of being the bishop over a ward, for which this anonymous bishop allegedly accessed a confidential church database to cross-reference it with names from a third-party commercial entity, was ______________________________.

36 pages and counting.......................Still no answer................

I answered it 10 pages ago. It is just that no one liked my answer.

viewtopic.php?p=697643#p697643

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

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.

This is complete and utter crap for an "answer". You know what you're doing. Be an adult and answer it like normal people.

- Doc

[_3sheets2thewind]

In summary, the official church business that is within the scope of being the bishop over a ward, for which this anonymous bishop allegedly accessed a confidential church database to cross-reference it with names from a third-party commercial entity, was ______________________________.

I answered it 10 pages ago. It is just that no one liked my answer.

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 43#p697643

[/quote]


For crap sake.

Are you now lying for your lord?

Dan himself, via you as proxy, stated the purpose for the search was only to know if a Bishop was the tour.

So either Dan told his Bishop friend he just wanted to know for swing and round-a-bouts.

OR

Dan knowing swings and round abouts wasn't a valid reason, he told a different reason to the Bishop.

Either you are lying or Dan is lying.....are you going to sacrifice your integrity on the alter of DCP?

[_sock puppet]

Indeed! I reign from the rivers to the ends of the Earth! There is none who dares to molest or make afraid!

Ray, could you clarify a couple of points for readers of this thread?

The failure to believe in Mormonism's truth claims is:

(a) equivalent to hating human beings who are Mormons to the same degree that Nazis hated Jews
(b) somewhat less evil than hating human beings who are Mormons to the same degree that Nazis hated Jews
(c) somewhat more evil than hating human beings who are Mormons to the same degree that Nazis hated Jews

The failure to believe that space aliens are visiting the Earth is:

(a) morally equivalent to rejecting Mormonism's truth claims
(b) morally equivalent to rejecting Jesus
(c) morally equivalent to rejecting God altogether
(d) the same as the Nazis murdering the Jews
(e) inspired by Lucifer
(f) all of the above

Don't divert. Address the inconsistency. The same goes for your defenders and those here too afraid to speak ill of you or criticise you. They probably well understand the consequences, and the mind-numbing interrogation they could face.

That's "and the lie-busting interrogation" that one would face. For some being interrogated, mind-numbing and lie-busting are indistinguishable.

[_beastie]

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.

The best way to determine someone's motives isn't to ask them afterwards "why". The best way to determine motives is to analyze the timeline of events. If you were correct and this was the motivation, here's what would have happened.

1. DCP tells his bishop friend "Red Alert! Red Alert! Bishop on the internet making a mockery of the church!"
2. DCP's friend says "yes, it is my ecclesiastical duty to determine if, indeed, a bishop is making a mockery of the church. And if there is a bishop making a mockery of the church on the internet, then I will (fill in blank - but something to do with ecclesiastical duty. Alert authorities? Pronounce a cursing on his head?)
3. DCP's friend accesses the restricted files.
4. DCP's friend determines that there was no bishop on the trip. Hence, case closed. No further action necessary because there is no bishop making a mockery of the church on the internet.

But that's not what happened. DCP's friend told DCP there was no bishop on the trip, and DCP reported to an internet board that EVC is a liar.

That clearly tells us the motive, liz. All this other stuff is post-hoc rationalizations.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

In the meantime, though, Everybody Wang Chung continues to post comments on the message board that seem radically incongruous with being a faithful member of the Church, let alone a currently-serving bishop. Many of them are extremely insulting toward Peterson. He is also reputed to have sent some extraordinarily abusive and crude emails to one or two people who are friendly to Peterson.

Why is it in 3rd person?

Great question. Does DCP commonly refer to himself in the third person?

I remember getting a kick out of watching Karl Malone do the same thing in interviews.

[_3sheets2thewind]

In summary, the official church business that is within the scope of being the bishop over a ward, for which this anonymous bishop allegedly accessed a confidential church database to cross-reference it with names from a third-party commercial entity, was ______________________________.

I answered it 10 pages ago. It is just that no one liked my answer.

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 43#p697643

For crap sake.

Are you now lying for your lord?

Dan himself, via you as proxy, stated the purpose for the search was only to know if a Bishop was the tour.

So either Dan told his Bishop friend he just wanted to know for swing and round-a-bouts.

OR

Dan knowing swings and round abouts wasn't a valid reason, he told a different reason to the Bishop.

Either you are lying or Dan is lying.....are you going to sacrifice your integrity on the alter of DCP?[/quote]

[_Alter Idem]

I answered it 10 pages ago. It is just that no one liked my answer.

viewtopic.php?p=697643#p697643

But Liz, if they accept an answer, they can't keep the thread alive.

(Rats, I've kept the thread alive. )

[_beastie]

But Liz, if they accept an answer, they can't keep the thread alive.

(Rats, I've kept the thread alive. )

The answer is not consistent with the actions and timeline.

I asked this question earlier and didn't see a response.

I have a hypothetical situation for Dan's defenders to consider.

A few years ago, there was a dispute between some critics and believers in regards to whether or not FARMS apologists were paid for their work. How would you have reacted if a critic had a friend who worked for BYU's financial department, and could access confidential information that would disclose whether or not Dan was paid for his work for FARMS?

Would that friend have committed an ethical breach? Would the critic who had asked his friend to access that information have committed an ethical breach?


Why is it so hard just to admit that, in retrospect, Dan probably made a mistake in judgment?