Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

[_Darth J]

You know, Liz, one time a police officer pulled me over for going 40 in a 25 mph zone. And I said, "Yeah, but the speed limit doesn't apply if you are going to the grocery store." And he said, "The sign says 25 mph." And then I said, "But I needed to see if I left the iron on at home." And he said, "The sign says 25 mph." And I said, "But I really needed to go 40 mph." And he said, "The sign says 25 mph."

This went on for a while, and then I told him, "You're just saying I went over the speed limit because you don't like me, and I think you're being disrespectful for accusing me of violating the speed limit just because the sign says 25 and I was going 40."

And guess what? He finally agreed that the posted speed limit didn't mean that you are only allowed to go 25 mph where I had been driving! Yay!!!!

[_3sheets2thewind]

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

Why must either one of us be lying?

You don't think that Dan told his friend what was going on here? My point and Alter's point is that Dan's friend, as a bishop, made a valid judgment call based on the information Dan gave him.

Dan's singular stated reason for asking a Bishop to access the CDOL was for Dan to find out if a Bishop was on the tour? (this is based on your proxy post for Dan)

A. True
or
B. False

There is a disconnect between what you are claiming and what Dan has posted.


Alter is being challenged because Alter's rationale is devoid of logic. Per Alter's assertion, General Membership are confidential records and CDOL the CDOL is not. Yet both contain the same personally identifiable information (PII) but in different formats.

As for stem, I have stem on ignore.

[_Yoda]

You know, Liz, one time a police officer pulled me over for going 40 in a 25 mph zone. And I said, "Yeah, but the speed limit doesn't apply if you are going to the grocery store." And he said, "The sign says 25 mph." And then I said, "But I needed to see if I left the iron on at home." And he said, "The sign says 25 mph." And I said, "But I really needed to go 40 mph." And he said, "The sign says 25 mph."

This went on for a while, and then I told him, "You're just saying I went over the speed limit because you don't like me, and I think you're being disrespectful for accusing me of violating the speed limit just because the sign says 25 and I was going 40."

And guess what? He finally agreed that the posted speed limit didn't mean that you are only allowed to go 25 mph where I had been driving! Yay!!!!

And this smart ass post just further proves my point.

You were the one who came in guns blazing against me. My position was delivered calmly. You are the one who has consistently come at me, not only twisting my words, but also insulting me.

Say what you want to me. I'm putting you on ignore. I should have done it a long time ago. Silly me. At one point, I thought we were friends.

[_Darth J]

You know, Liz, one time a police officer pulled me over for going 40 in a 25 mph zone. And I said, "Yeah, but the speed limit doesn't apply if you are going to the grocery store." And he said, "The sign says 25 mph." And then I said, "But I needed to see if I left the iron on at home." And he said, "The sign says 25 mph." And I said, "But I really needed to go 40 mph." And he said, "The sign says 25 mph."

This went on for a while, and then I told him, "You're just saying I went over the speed limit because you don't like me, and I think you're being disrespectful for accusing me of violating the speed limit just because the sign says 25 and I was going 40."

And guess what? He finally agreed that the posted speed limit didn't mean that you are only allowed to go 25 mph where I had been driving! Yay!!!!

And this smart ass post just further proves my point.

You were the one who came in guns blazing against me. My position was delivered calmly. You are the one who has consistently come at me, not only twisting my words, but also insulting me.

Say what you want to me. I'm putting you on ignore. I should have done it a long time ago. Silly me. At one point, I thought we were friends.

Liz, whenever you want to reconcile the plain language of the revocable license agreement with your idea that LDS bishops decide for themselves what the scope of their duties are, you may certainly do so.

Feel free to show any words you have said that I have twisted, too.

[_Darth J]

And Liz: the "smart ass post" is exactly what you are arguing.

[_stemelbow]

Hey everyone.

I thought this thread had been exhausted, but nope. I see DJ still vehemently running off-topic again in his hopeless pursuit of anger.

I just thought I'd get us back on topic. I don't think Dan broke church rules. And it's also apparent he didn't pursue anything associated with the hostile term mopologetics in so doing.

Now, can we all move on? Just kidding. I realize ol' DJ will be coming at me with his guns ablazing as he does.

[_Darth J]

Hey everyone.

I thought this thread had been exhausted, but nope. I see DJ still vehemently running off-topic again in his hopeless pursuit of anger.

I just thought I'd get us back on topic. I don't think Dan broke church rules. And it's also apparent he didn't pursue anything associated with the hostile term mopologetics in so doing.

Now, can we all move on? Just kidding. I realize ol' DJ will be coming at me with his guns ablazing as he does.

I'm aware that you think the Church's legal terms and conditions for accessing its confidential data is off-topic to the idea that your various figures of worship, like Jesus, Joseph Smith, and Daniel Peterson are free from sin. You're also still oblivious to the fact that this thread is not about your Lord and Savior, Daniel Peterson. This thread is about the ridiculous, disingenuous mentality of the members of his little cult of personality who are defending his acts.

Thank you for your comments; everyone is dumber for having read them.

[_stemelbow]

lol

Says stem,

I see DJ...in his hopeless pursuit of anger

and

I realize ol' DJ will be coming at me with his guns ablazing as he does

And DJ comes with:

I'm aware that you think the Church's legal terms and conditions for accessing its confidential data is off-topic to the idea that your various figures of worship, like Jesus, Joseph Smith, and Daniel Peterson are free from sin. You're also still oblivious to the fact that this thread is not about your Lord and Savior, Daniel Peterson. This thread is about the ridiculous, disingenuous mentality of the members of his little cult of personality who are defending his acts.

Thank you for your comments; everyone is dumber for having read them.

Ain't he cute everyone? I sure think so. Hope he realizes his hostility is self-destructive and he moves on.

[Guest]

Stemelbow, how exactly is it that you are able to ascertain a person's emotional state from words on a message board? If you could walk me through that process, it would be great.

Does it involve a seer stone at all? Because one of my neighbors might be digging a well, so at least I could go get one for myself.

[_Darth J]

Also, stemelbow, thanks again for emphasizing that per your religious dogma, the truth value of all things must be evaluated in terms of subjective emotional states, including emotional states that one randomly asserts to be present in other people. Angry is evil and false, happy is righteous and true.

Your Care Bears epistemology is very compelling. Maybe it will help you to understand the difference between a legal document and ad hoc religious claims someday.