Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

[_Darth J]

Define use.

For board members new to this thread, the disingenuousness here is the unwarranted implication that in the Handbook of Instructions, there is any reason at all to believe that "use" is some term of art unique from its plain, ordinary meaning.

use

1. To put into service or apply for a purpose; employ.
2. To avail oneself of; practice: use caution.
3. To conduct oneself toward; treat or handle: "the peace offering of a man who once used you unkindly" (Laurence Sterne).
4. To seek or achieve an end by means of; exploit: used their highly placed friends to gain access to the president; felt he was being used by seekers of favor.
5. To take or consume; partake of: She rarely used alcohol.

The fact that Stem thinks a Non-Bishop asking a Bishop to run a list of names from a third party commerical resource through a confidential database for the sole purposes of trying to identify a messageboard poster is totally legit and totally within the realm of confidentiality is a slam dunk.

This is exactly why this thread was created, to document this kind of stuff. I know stem thinks he is doing something clever here, but by being this stupid he is only highlighting the wrong done here.

That's exactly it, MrStakhanovite. This is the "fill your fire extinguisher with gasoline" approach. And that is why I hope David keeps talking at length about how acceptable and normal this is.

The question seems to be is there anything that DCP could do that would stop his cult following of Mormontologists from blindly defending his actions?

And the answer is a resounding no. See also: Joseph Smith

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Do you honestly think a SP would "laugh" if he found out one of his bishops violated the Church's "conditions of use" to help out a friend's personal request? If so, what are you smoking?

I think he would laugh at the idea that he actually violated anything.

Then such a leader would be incapable of understanding the Church's written policies concerning confidentiality and records and should ask to be released immediately.

Absolutely, 110%.

Please explain.

I have over and over to you -- just read my prior posts in this thread.

I'm just stating the obvious; you're the one in fantasy land.

No the obvious is, Everybody Wang Chung lied.

A red herring. It makes no difference at all whether Chung lied -- the issue you are so desperately trying to deflect is that DCP had his bishop buddy violate the Church's own "conditions of use" in accessing the Church's leadership directory and trying to find the in real life identity of an anonymous Internet poster with whom DCP has often squabbled. Try as you might, there is NO way you or anyone else can avoid this fact. But feel free to keep trying ....

DCP figured he'd confirm that suspicion that most of us have, by sending the list of trip goers to see if any are bishops. Not one piece of data from the actual database accessed by this bishop was ever given to DCP.

Continuing BS. And information was given to DCP -- the bishop buddy told him what he didn't find (i.e., Chung's in real life identity).

Tell you what, Stem, let's try an experiment. Make up a name (like John Doe, but be a little more creative), then go to your own bishop and ask him to run that name through the Church leadership directory because you have reason to believe this person is a real bishop but at the same time an apostate who posts on the Internet. Of course, because the name is invented, your bishop will find nothing ... but at least we'll know if he was willing to do the search despite the express "conditions of use." Please report back whether your bishop accepted your request or whether he declined based on the "conditions of use." Thank you in advance for agreeing to do this little experiment.

What bishop? This is not comparable of course. In no way did this randomly made up person say he went on a trip with me. In no way did this made up person attack me by name on the internet.

This is entirely comparable. Let's just see if there is another bishop out there (your bishop, by the way) who is willing to access private Church records to answer your personal request. Just make up a name (DCP gave his bishop buddy a fake name, too); I just want to see if your bishop will "follow the spirit of the law" (as you like to say) and not have any problem trying to help with your request.

Your experiment simply isn't parallel.

It most certainly is.

But, if as you say it is a violation of the "conditions of use" then please report it and we'll see if it is not laughed out of existence or not.

I can't report it unless DCP gives up the bishop's name, which he assuredly will not do. But, perhaps, as his good friend, he'll give it to you, so please ask him. If you get it, pass it on to me, and I'll take it from there. Thanks in advance.

[_Alter Idem]

I can't report it unless DCP gives up the bishop's name, which he assuredly will not do. But, perhaps, as his good friend, he'll give it to you, so please ask him. If you get it, pass it on to me, and I'll take it from there. Thanks in advance.

Of course you can report it. You don't need the Bishop's name. Just call Church Headquarters and tell them what Dan did-you think it's so egregious, then for certain they'll investigate and Dan will have to identify his friend. If you are so sure this was a violation, I don't see why you all refuse to follow through.

But then, Everybody Wang Chung is a Bishop, right? After all, he's been saying he is. That means he can call Salt Lake himself--As a Bishop, it would be easy--he has a direct access number, and he can report what Dan did himself. And since he's the 'injured party', he should be the one to handle it.

[Guest]

-

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I can't report it unless DCP gives up the bishop's name, which he assuredly will not do. But, perhaps, as his good friend, he'll give it to you, so please ask him. If you get it, pass it on to me, and I'll take it from there. Thanks in advance.

Of course you can report it. You don't need the Bishop's name. Just call Church Headquarters and tell them what Dan did-you think it's so egregious, then for certain they'll investigate and Dan will have to identify his friend. If you are so sure this was a violation, I don't see why you all refuse to follow through.

No, I need the bishop's name. DCP himself did not violate the "conditions of use." His bishop buddy did. So, Alter Idem, would you be so kind as to try and coax that information out of Dan and pass on to me? Again, thanks in advance.

[_Darth J]

Don't you love how the belief that the LDS Church will not enforce its own policies is being touted as proof that using church resources to stalk an anonymous message board poster is admirable?

Don't you love how the way to show that "we're not a cult" is by doubling down on it?

[_MrStakhanovite]

I've edited the OP to include Dan's first response to the charges of breaking Church Rules.

[_Alter Idem]

If I knew who the Bishop was, I would not tell you, you only want his name so you can pillory him along with Dan here on the board. If I knew who it was, I'd thank him for helping Dan.

I have called out Everybody Wang Chung a couple of times for his claims that he's a Bishop, because he isn't one. I'm just glad his lie is finally exposed.

Rollo, you DON'T need the name to turn him in. And even if you got the name, I'm certain you'd do nothing with it. You are smart enough to know that Dan and his friend didn't do anything wrong and if anyone did notify church headquarters of this, it would only bring unwanted scrutiny to Mormondiscussions. I wonder what they'd think of the pages and pages of attacks on leaders, the members, the doctrine, as well as the years of attacks and harassment against people like Dan Peterson and other LDS scholars? While the non-members may not care, it seems to me there are a number of others here who'd like to stay off the church radar.

[_harmony]

No, I need the bishop's name. DCP himself did not violate the "conditions of use." His bishop buddy did. So, Alter Idem, would you be so kind as to try and coax that information out of Dan and pass on to me? Again, thanks in advance.

Rollo, they don't understand this point. They don't understand that several thousand members' private information has been compromised.

Well, they may understand it, but they're circling the wagons.

You're never going to get that name.

edited to be more clear

[_Molok]

You are smart enough to know that Dan and his friend didn't do anything wrong and if anyone did notify church headquarters of this, it would only bring unwanted scrutiny to Mormondiscussions. I wonder what they'd think of the pages and pages of attacks on leaders, the members, the doctrine, as well as the years of attacks and harassment against people like Dan Peterson and other LDS scholars? While the non-members may not care, it seems to me there are a number of others here who'd like to stay off the church radar.

Nice threat. So what was the official church purpose of checking the names again?

(God I love watching you people do your damndest to avoid answering this question)