Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

[_stemelbow]

Your posts were moved to another thread because they had more to do with accusing Everybody Wang Chung of lying that they did with the topic of this thread. Stay on-topic or troll somewhere else.

The topic of the thread is whether DCP broke Church rules. I offered a dissenting opinion and my explanation of that involved Everybody Wang Chung lying. I can't help that he lied. But rest assured, the moving away is more to do with dissention then to do with protecting Everybody Wang Chung.

The CHI states, "Leaders ensure that information that is gathered from members is (1) limited to what the Church requires and (2) used only for approved Church purposes." It does not say that leaders can look into this information for personal purposes so long as they don't give said information out to others. Besides, the bishop did give information out to others: he confirmed to Dan that none of the names Dan gave him were bishops.

So information that a person is a bishop is limited to what the Church requires and is only used for Church purposes? You are completely mistaking the spirit of this. indeed, any effort to convict Dan or the bishop friend of his on this will be completely laughed out of church court. Why? Because this has nothing to do with asking if an anonymous attacker who boasts about being a bishop is really a bishop. This is all abotu using information about members for business reasons or for political reasons.

Unless the church formally requested that this bishop look into these records on Dan's behalf, yes, the bishop broke the rules.

Not the spirit of the rules. Just the letter. And in that, no one in authority will see this as a rule violation.

It's really not Dan's fault that Everybody Wang Chung has been boasting about all of this. He's the one whose making it all an issue.

[_MsJack]

The topic of the thread is whether DCP broke Church rules. I offered a dissenting opinion and my explanation of that involved Everybody Wang Chung lying. I can't help that he lied. But rest assured, the moving away is more to do with dissention then to do with protecting Everybody Wang Chung.

The first sentence of your first post in the thread was, "In truth, I think it was pretty clear Everybody Wang Chung has been lying," and then you mentioned it 2-3 more times within the span of 2 short paragraphs. The mods here care about derails. Get over it.

I'm glad that you agree that this bishop broke the rules. You're welcome to tell yourself that this bishop only broke "the letter" of the rules and not "the spirit" of them, but I don't trust your knowledge of what "the spirit" of these rules is. Maybe I'll have a conversation with my husband's bishop about whether or not this type of use of church records is appropriate, since it's things like this that make me reluctant to allow the church to create a nonmember spouse record for me. I trust him to understand "the spirit" of these rules better than you would.

[_stemelbow]

I'm glad that you agree that this bishop broke the rules. You're welcome to tell yourself that this bishop only broke "the letter" of the rules and not "the spirit" of them, but I don't trust your knowledge of what "the spirit" of these rules is. Maybe I'll have a conversation with my husband's bishop about whether or not this type of use of church records is appropriate, since it's things like this that make me reluctant to allow the church to create a nonmember spouse record for me. I trust him to understand "the spirit" of these rules better than you would.

yeah...'cause you'll present the case to him with fairness and openness. Whateves.

The best coruse of action here, if you truly feel you have any sort of case, is to turn in DCP and his friend. See what kind of reaction they give, particularly when the details are all laid out for them.

Here's what they'll see:

Everybody Wang Chung is an anonymous poster who posts on the Mormon Discussions Message Board.

The Board in question is full of people who are no longer LDS, were never LDS, and some few LDS (most of which are critical of the Church in general to some degree and very critical of DCP as a person)

Everybody Wang Chung has been boasting about being a bishop while simultaneously attacking LDS folks.

Everybody Wang Chung also boasted about going on a trip with DCP.

DCP realizing he could expose Everybody Wang Chung's fraud, provided a list to a friend to see if there were any bishops on the trip.

There were none.

Everybody Wang Chung remains an anonymous posters who attacks folks like DCP on a message board which has at any given time, a significant portion of threads dedicated to attacking DCP and others.

I'm thinking If I spoke with your bishop about it, even knowing you and your husband and thus more sympathetic to yoru complaints, he would find it pretty laughable.

[_stemelbow]

The mods here care about derails. Get over it.

lol. yeah right. You're blind as a bat.

[_Molok]

I guess Stem thinks the COJCOLDS is all about violating people's privacy rights so they can stick it to anonymous apostates on the internet. I, personally, doubt that a church as image paranoid as SLC Mormonism would be fine with this kind of thing. Guess we'll just have to find out.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The best coruse of action here, if you truly feel you have any sort of case, is to turn in DCP and his friend. See what kind of reaction they give, particularly when the details are all laid out for them.

Here are the problems with your suggestion: (a) we don't know who the bishop friend is, and (b) DCP has been uncharacteristically silent about all this -- my guess is he's soiling his pants for inadvertently exposing his bishop friend's detailed involvement in all this. This is one instance where DCP's candor might get him in trouble.

[_MsJack]

yeah...'cause you'll present the case to him with fairness and openness. Whateves.

I will. I'm well-known for being both fair and open. I will say, "Are LDS bishops permitted to look up private church records in order to expose the identities and/or investigate the claims of anonymous posters on Internet message boards whom the bishop in question has no connection to? Because I know of a bishop who did this recently, and gave the information he learned of to a regular member, and his defenders say this is an acceptable use of church information. I'm not comfortable allowing the church to create a nonmember spouse record on me if that is the case. I don't want someone who takes issue with something I said on the Internet trying to access the information that the church has on me via his or her bishop friend."

Which part of that do you find to be an unfair assessment of the situation?

[_Darth J]

I haven't been on this board to know the board dynamics. Usually it seems there are one or two up tight people that everyone likes to play. And the rest are sarcastic jokers yanking chains. I hope that's what's going on in this thread. Because if any of you are serious about this, you really need to take a break from this fight and look at the big picture.

I'm glad to see you sincerely feel that way, Robuchan.

Please post your real name, address, date of birth, and phone number, along with that of your spouse and each of your children.

[_robuchan]

I haven't been on this board to know the board dynamics. Usually it seems there are one or two up tight people that everyone likes to play. And the rest are sarcastic jokers yanking chains. I hope that's what's going on in this thread. Because if any of you are serious about this, you really need to take a break from this fight and look at the big picture.

I'm glad to see you sincerely feel that way, Robuchan.

Please post your real name, address, date of birth, and phone number, along with that of your spouse and each of your children.

Is that what DCP did? If someone really did that to me, then I would go nuts and there would be hell to pay. I would not rest until I had revenge. If someone may or may not have done some detective work which may or may not have resulted in someone finding my identity and the result of that is that that person may or may not decide to do something at some undetermined time in the future? In that case, what would I do? hmm, since that happens almost every day on the internet, I probably would get past it OK.

[_Darth J]

Robuchan, I see that you sincerely believe that it's irrational to care whether a complete stranger feels the need to find out information like your real name, birth date, address, and telephone number, as well as that of your spouse and children.

So why don't you go ahead and post that information right now?