Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

[_beastie]

I honestly don't think that the scenarios are compatible.

Why?

[_Yoda]

I honestly don't think that the scenarios are compatible.

Why?

Because there is a big difference in asking about someone's finances, and asking if someone is serving as a bishop or not.

It is an apples/oranges comparison.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

I am just sick to death of him being stalked and continuously criticized. No one deserves what he has gone through.

Liz,

Thanks for the support Liz. It has been difficult for me to have been continuously criticized and stalked by DCP and his many friends.

However, don't cry for me Argentina. I'll make it through somehow.

Wait...you were talking about me, weren't you?

[_Yoda]

I am just sick to death of him being stalked and continuously criticized. No one deserves what he has gone through.

Liz,

Thanks for the support Liz. It has been difficult for me to have been continuously criticized and stalked by DCP and his many friends.

However, don't cry for me Argentina. I'll make it through somehow.

Wait...you were talking about me, weren't you?

OK, this was funny!

[_beastie]

Because there is a big difference in asking about someone's finances, and asking if someone is serving as a bishop or not.

It is an apples/oranges comparison.

Well, it's more than just asking if someone is serving as a bishop. It's finding out someone's identity when they have chosen not to share that identity on an internet board.

Let's say all the critic would ask his friend to find out is "yes or no", do the financial records show payment rendered for apologetic services. No exact figures given, no exact financial information shared. Just yes or no. Ethical breech?

[_Darth J]

Welcome back to the thread, Liz! I guess today is your day in the barrel? Yeah, it's about time that L. Ron---excuse me, Daniel---gave stemelbow some time off.

I think the most conclusive proof that you think this is a silly topic not worth discussing is your acting as Brother Peterson's emissary to post a press release explaining his actions, and then following that up with several more self-contradictory justifications.

Since I am officially claiming to be a full tithe payer and current temple recommend holder, you will no doubt agree with me that Brother Peterson would be justified in having his bishop friend look at a confidential LDS Church database to see if that's true, since bishops are authorized to investigate people on message boards making claims about their status with the Church that are allegedly inconsistent with the contents of their posts.

[_Yoda]

Well, it's more than just asking if someone is serving as a bishop. It's finding out someone's identity when they have chosen not to share that identity on an internet board.

No, it's about asking if someone is serving as bishop. There were no more questions beyond that. There was no digging to find a particular name. Now, IF Dan's friend had answered yes, and IF Dan questioned his friend further and attempted to match up names, then we would have something to talk about.

All of you automatically assume that Dan would have done this, but that is what it is, an assumption.

As it stands, a yes/no question about whether or not anyone on a list of names are serving bishops is the ONLY question that was actually asked.

[_Yoda]

Let's say all the critic would ask his friend to find out is "yes or no", do the financial records show payment rendered for apologetic services. No exact figures given, no exact financial information shared. Just yes or no. Ethical breech?

Still an apples/oranges comparison.

Asking if anyone listed in a group is a serving bishop is a completely different question than asking about whether or not someone is paid for a specific task.

Do I really need to spell this out?

Whether or not someone serves as a bishop is not some big secret or privacy issue.

Looking into someone's private finances and answering questions about them obviously is.

[_beastie]

No, it's about asking if someone is serving as bishop. There were no more questions beyond that. There was no digging to find a particular name. Now, IF Dan's friend had answered yes, and IF Dan questioned his friend further and attempted to match up names, then we would have something to talk about.

All of you automatically assume that Dan would have done this, but that is what it is, an assumption.

As it stands, a yes/no question about whether or not anyone on a list of names are serving bishops is the ONLY question that was actually asked.

liz -

Of course he would have known his name if the answer was "yes". He provided a list of names on the trip. One would have come back as "bishop." The only reason that there was no name given is because there was no bishop present.

I think this is the crux of the problem. You don't see that identity was involved in this, and some of us see that identity was a crucial part.

[_Yoda]

No, it's about asking if someone is serving as bishop. There were no more questions beyond that. There was no digging to find a particular name. Now, IF Dan's friend had answered yes, and IF Dan questioned his friend further and attempted to match up names, then we would have something to talk about.

All of you automatically assume that Dan would have done this, but that is what it is, an assumption.

As it stands, a yes/no question about whether or not anyone on a list of names are serving bishops is the ONLY question that was actually asked.

liz -

Of course he would have known his name if the answer was "yes". He provided a list of names on the trip. One would have come back as "bishop." The only reason that there was no name given is because there was no bishop present.

I think this is the crux of the problem. You don't see that identity was involved in this, and some of us see that identity was a crucial part.

There was more than one name that was being checked, Beastie. Even if the answer had come back as yes, he would have had to have asked further questions to make a positive identity.