Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

[_3sheets2thewind]

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.

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.

So it wasn't wrong because no further questions were asked?

[Guest]

-

[_beastie]

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.

This is the point of disagreement. You do not see that the natural end of this inquiry would have been DCP discovering Wang's identity. You do not seem to believe that finding out his real identity was an integral part of the inquiry.

I think it's extraordinary to ask us to believe that DCP would not have ended the inquiry with Everybody Wang Chung's name in hand.

For one thing, you're asking us to believe that the ONLY purpose in this inquiry was so a fellow bishop can meet the moral requirements of his calling by investigating whether another fellow bishop was disrespecting the church on the internet. If, indeed, Everybody Wang Chung had been discovered to be a bishop on the tour, then something would have happened. Otherwise, your scenario makes no sense. The name would have had to be known for anything meaningful to happen. Otherwise, are we expected to believe that the bishop friend would have ended everything at the answer "Yes, there was a bishop on the tour, but I will not reveal his name and will not do anything with that information, even though the whole point of this was to find out if a fellow bishop was disrespecting the church on the internet"??

Don't you see, liz? This is all about ferreting out someone's identity. I know this happens on both sides of this equation, and it's wrong on both sides. But when believers do it, it's often with the implicit threat that the doubts and criticisms of the secret skeptic or nonbeliever will be exposed to LDS family, friends, and business associates with the purpose of causing trouble for the nonbeliever. It's one way of trying to silence critics and doubters. And we have good reason to be wary of this. Remember Eric and DCP?

[_Yoda]

And again, we would have had something to discuss had it actually gone that far. It didn't.

Does DCP have any idea who Everybody Wang Chung is in real life?

No, he doesn't.

We are never going to agree on this, Beastie, but I do appreciate your civility.

[_Yoda]

So it wasn't wrong because no further questions were asked?

Yes.

ETA--If DCP had chosen to pursue a further investigation, I would agree 100% with you guys.

But the fact is, he didn't. And it is left entirely to speculation as to whether or not he would have pursued something further.

I don't believe he would have. You believe he would have.

That is where we stand. At an impasse.

[_sock puppet]

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.

So Dan was on a fishing expedition when plying his bishop friend to access the restricted database. Dan didn't have just one name in mind, he was checking up on the roster going to Israel.

[_Yoda]

When asked anymore about this, I am going to repeat this post because it is, in essence, how I feel about the situation and there is no point to me in discussing it further:


3sheets wrote:
So it wasn't wrong because no further questions were asked?


Yes.

ETA--If DCP had chosen to pursue a further investigation, I would agree 100% with you guys.

But the fact is, he didn't. And it is left entirely to speculation as to whether or not he would have pursued something further.

I don't believe he would have. You believe he would have.

That is where we stand. At an impasse.

[_sock puppet]

URL to Dan's post: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/60262-review-of-greg-smiths-review-of-mormon-stories/page__st__80#entry1209235403

Text of Dan's post:

There's always "Everybody Wang Chung," I suppose. He claims to be a currently serving bishop. He also claimed that his wife surprised him with a tour to Israel this past April/May, led by me. He was, he promised, going to go and to report back to his apostate buddies on all my silly Mopologist antics there. Later, when asked, he claimed to have actually gone, and again, under prodding, promised to provide a chronicle of my ridiculousness while he was with me in the Middle East. So far as I can tell, he's never done so. Finally, just the other day, I got out a list of all of the people who accompanied me on that tour, and I had a friend who is a bishop cross check it against the Church's leadership directory. There were no currently serving bishops on that tour. I suppose Everybody Wang Chung's claim could still somehow be true, but I very much doubt it. It seems far and away most likely that he isn't a currently serving bishop, despite his assertions (he doesn't seem to believe much of anything, and is contemptuous of those who do, often in pretty foul language), and that he didn't go to Israel with me. In other words, if I had to bet, I would bet that he's a fraud.

Screen Shot of Post.

Here it is in relevant part, from Section 13.8 entitled "Confidentiality of Records" in Handbook 1 (2010) (emphasis added):

The records of the Church are confidential, whether they exist on paper, in computers, or in other electronic media. These include membership records, financial records, notes of meetings, official forms and documents (including records of disciplinary councils), and notes made from private interviews.

Leaders and clerks are to safeguard Church records by handling, storing, and disposing of them in a way that protects the privacy of individuals. 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.

Information from Church records and reports may be given only to those who are authorized to use it.

Information that is stored electronically must be kept secure and protected by a password (citation omitted). Leaders ensure that such data is not used for personal, political, or commercial purposes. Information from Church records, including historical information, may not be given to individuals or agencies conducting research or surveys.

Here is Dan's first response.

Here’s how my latest crime against humanity went down:

1. Sometime in 2011, I believe, “Everybody Wang Chung” [hereafter, Everybody Wang Chung], a pseudonymous poster on a mostly agnostic/atheist message board largely populated by apostate Mormons and overwhelmingly devoted to virulent criticism of the Church and of some of those who defend it—criticism in which Everybody Wang Chung enthusiastically participates—claims to have accepted ordination as a Latter-day Saint bishop.

2. Somewhere late in 2011, Everybody Wang Chung claims to have been surprised by his wife (who seems to be unaware of his attitude toward the Church) with an early Christmas present: She’s signed him up for a tour of Israel, late in April 2012, led by Daniel Peterson. He promises to report to the message board on Peterson’s ludicrous antics and ridiculous statements while in Israel, and to post photographs. Some amused comments follow for several days, encouraging him in his plans and suggesting needling questions he might ask. Peterson, who checks in on this particular message board from time to time in order to find out what the critics are up to, is not happy at the thought of a contemptuous apostate covertly sneering at him throughout the tour (e.g., when Peterson is speaking, and testimonies are borne by tour participants, at the Mount of Beatitudes, in the Garden of Gethsemane, and at the Garden Tomb).

So Dan's motivation was the personal irritation and possibility that someone on a tour that has been by March 2013 over for now 10 months or more. The only relevance remaining by March 2013 is the irritation that Everybody Wang Chung's posting online presents. After all, at that point, either Everybody Wang Chung had been or had not been on the Israel tour. Dan could not refuse to allow Everybody Wang Chung to go or not.

3. Comments on the message board soon die down, however, and, over the course of the six months or so between (2) and the tour, Peterson forgets about Everybody Wang Chung’s claim. Thus, when he actually leads the tour, Peterson isn’t thinking about the matter at all. He gets to know everybody on the tour reasonably well—they spend roughly sixteen hours together daily, every day, for ten days—and everyone appears to have a satisfying experience in the Holy Land. Peterson and his wife, who accompanies him on these tours, consider the participants friends. (Some already were.)

4. A month or so after the conclusion of the tour, however, somebody asks Everybody Wang Chung if he actually went to Israel with Daniel Peterson, and whether he’s going to post any reports. Yes, he responds, he did go. And he will be posting reports. They never come.

5. 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. Some of his posts actually trade on his alleged status as a currently serving bishop: On several occasions, for example, he declares Peterson worthy of Church disciplinary action. On others, he publicly apologizes to the world on behalf of the Church for Peterson’s evil deeds, viciousness, and dishonesty.

6. Watching these things, and hearing about them, Peterson reflects upon those who toured Israel with him in April/May 2012. He and his wife conclude that such behavior plausibly fits nobody on the tour, and that Everybody Wang Chung’s claim to have accompanied them to Israel must be a lie.

So Dan leaves it at that, right? Nope.

7. Finally, in March 2013, having observed Everybody Wang Chung’s behavior for nearly a year since the tour, Peterson gets out a list of the participants on the April 2012 trip to Israel. Were any of them actually currently-serving bishops? It’s easy to eliminate most of those on the list (e.g., women, himself, and people he knows in his daily life) as potential candidates. But a small number of men remain—none of whom seem even remotely plausible as sneering closet apostates engaged in a clandestine vendetta against Peterson—who might be bishops.

Beginning with NAMES on a list, and then deductively crossing off names, one by one, in an attempt to find the NAME of any that might have been a bishop.

8. Peterson asks a friend of his who is currently serving as a bishop to check those names against the Church leadership directory. Were there any currently-serving bishops on that tour? The answer comes back No. There were none. This seems to confirm Peterson’s confident belief that Everybody Wang Chung has been lying about either being a bishop, or going on that April 2012 tour of Israel, or—most likely—both. Peterson says so publicly, on another message board.

Dan had the bishop friend check, because Dan was not confident in his and his wife's assessment. Why the lack of confidence? Why need to verify against the database listing? Because Dan, who has been a lifelong member and a bishop himself, knows it is quite feasible that the Spirit of discernment on his Holy quest to eliminate the possibility of a bishop having been on the Israel tour with Dan in the Spring of 2012 was not reliable. He knew that some bishops are closet apostates--incongruous, in Dan's judgment, with what they appear to be.

8a. Had the answer come back that there was a bishop on that tour, that answer would not have surprised Peterson. Several bishops have gone with him to Israel before—including, one year, Peterson’s own. In fact, he can’t recall any other tour that didn’t have at least one bishop on it. But, strikingly, there were none on the April 2012 tour.

8b. Had the answer come back that there was a bishop on that tour, there would have been no particular reason to believe him to be Everybody Wang Chung. The purpose of comparing the list of tour participants was to see if there was a way to prove that a currently-serving bishop posting as Everybody Wang Chung had not come to Israel. A clear disproof was possible, but far from certain. As it happened, though, the answer was clear and decisive.[/quote="Dan"]The purpose was to disprove that a currently-serving bishop that in fact is a closet 'apostate' (per Dan's judgment) had 'fouled' his Magical Mystery Tour of Israel. Just how would that purpose have protected the Church???

8c. Since, at the most, the crosscheck could have served only the negative function of demonstrating that no bishop went to Israel with Peterson in April 2012, it could not actually have identified Everybody Wang Chung. So there was never a question of using it to ascertain, let alone to publicly reveal, Everybody Wang Chung’s identity. Nor was there was ever any intent to do so. There was no quest for private personal details. Holding the office of a bishop is a matter of public knowledge, and hardly secret. Bishops are sustained by their congregations, announced publicly, and officiate visibly. Peterson’s check with his currently-serving friend could (and, as it happens, did) establish a negative, but was incapable of making a positive identification.

Could only have served "the negative function of demonstrating that no bishop went to Israel"? No, it could have confirmed that one (or more) of the NAMES checked was a current (March 2013, 10 months after the fact in issue) bishop. With that Dan's list would be narrowed down further. Then with the remaining NAME(S), Dan could have used other in real life clues that Everybody Wang Chung has left, to then ascertain him and attempt to stop Everybody Wang Chung from posting his mind online.

[_Yoda]

Could only have served "the negative function of demonstrating that no bishop went to Israel"? No, it could have confirmed that one (or more) of the NAMES checked was a current (March 2013, 10 months after the fact in issue) bishop. With that Dan's list would be narrowed down further. Then with the remaining NAME(S), Dan could have used other in real life clues that Everybody Wang Chung has left, to then ascertain him and attempt to stop Everybody Wang Chung from posting his mind online.

Could have, but didn't.

[_SteelHead]

What would have been more fun. If some non Everybody Wang Chung bishop had gone and was subsequently publicly outed by DCP as Everybody Wang Chung.