Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

[_cafe crema]

And the fact that a negative answer came back from the database check does not absolve Dan's wrongdoing in having accessed the restricted database in the first place.

In other words, it's only bank robbery if you leave the building with the money.

Or, if no one is injured in anyway, attempted murder isn't really a crime because well no one was hurt.
DCP tried to find Everybody Wang Chung's RL identity that he didn't manage it doesn't change what he intended to do. Someone mentioned Chino Blanco didn't DCP make false claims about his RL identity?

As to some responsibility on the bishops part to find a possible fake bishop and take care of it through the church that's ridiculous. Like I before seems to me LDS bishops should have something more important to do than investigate anonymous posters who claim to be this or that on little message boards on the internet. For a church leader to believe he is charged with such a task is really pathetic. Best guess is ministers in other churches don't feel the need to do this and concentrate on the real people under their care instead of ghosts on the net.

[_MrStakhanovite]

First, deny
Second, excuse
Third, create diversionary story
Fourth, blame shift.

What is this doin on the bottom half of page one?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

First of all, I am not going to change my mind on my opinion about this. You guys can post until you're blue in the face. It is not going to change my mind, so basically, you are posting just to "hear yourselves talk".

So, my dear, you're just going to continue to "stick your head in the sand" on this topic. Got it.

[_Yoda]

First of all, I am not going to change my mind on my opinion about this. You guys can post until you're blue in the face. It is not going to change my mind, so basically, you are posting just to "hear yourselves talk".

So, my dear, you're just going to continue to "stick your head in the sand" on this topic. Got it.

If that is what you feel I'm doing, then so be it. I don't see it that way, but everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion.

[_sock puppet]

First of all, I am not going to change my mind on my opinion about this. You guys can post until you're blue in the face. It is not going to change my mind, so basically, you are posting just to "hear yourselves talk".

So, my dear, you're just going to continue to "stick your head in the sand" on this topic. Got it.

If that is what you feel I'm doing, then so be it. I don't see it that way, but everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion.

And it seems everyone is entitled to keep posting about his/her opinion too (a fact for which I am grateful we don't have heavy handed moderation here).

Dan is, at MDB, a lightning rod of diverse opinions. His shenanigans will always raise a lot of interest and posts by those that despise the methods of apologetics as practiced by the OMIDs. Many Mormon Defenders will post to death for Dan, as for some their testimonies only exist because they got saved from doubt by FARMS. And so, a Dan-topic'd thread will always get two-digit, and often three-digit, posting. This one, well, it's four-digit in posting count.

[_Molok]

I guess I'll just throw this out there: As someone who works in the banking industry, we are required to sign all kinds of non disclosure and terms of use documents. Many of them have very similiar wording to the agreement that's been posted on here. If someone asked me to look up to see if someone was a member of our bank, and I did that, even if it was just a yes or no answer, I would be reprimanded, or possibly fired for it. Just saying.

[_sock puppet]

Why does the LDS Church limit access to the database of bishops, SPs, etc?

Why is it not open to the public for the purposes of verifying the names of bishops and SPs?

The COB chose to restrict access and limit the license of use the database to accomplish the callings of those with access. Does a sunday school president sometimes need to know who the bishop of another ward is? Sure. But the LDS church does not give the sunday school president that access. Just current bishops, SPs, and on up.

So, DCP no longer has access. For his purposes--not those of his current bishop friend--he asks the bishop friend to abuse his access to confirm what DCP and his wife suspected, thought was probably--that there was no current bishop on the Israel tour.

DCP did not call COB and ask. (Well, maybe he did, and was denied.) In any event, DCP asked a bishop friend to do something unrelated to that bishop's flock and responsibility of his calling.

I think this is as plain a day improper for the two of them, supposedly believers that the Church's imposed rules and protocols are inspired by god, to circumvent the restriction from access by DCP and abuse the bishop's limited use license.

[_malkie]

Why does the LDS Church limit access to the database of bishops, SPs, etc?

Why is it not open to the public for the purposes of verifying the names of bishops and SPs?

The COB chose to restrict access and limit the license of use the database to accomplish the callings of those with access. Does a sunday school president sometimes need to know who the bishop of another ward is? Sure. But the LDS church does not give the sunday school president that access. Just current bishops, SPs, and on up.

So, DCP no longer has access. For his purposes--not those of his current bishop friend--he asks the bishop friend to abuse his access to confirm what DCP and his wife suspected, thought was probably--that there was no current bishop on the Israel tour.

DCP did not call COB and ask. (Well, maybe he did, and was denied.) In any event, DCP asked a bishop friend to do something unrelated to that bishop's flock and responsibility of his calling.

I think this is as plain a day improper for the two of them, supposedly believers that the Church's imposed rules and protocols are inspired by god, to circumvent the restriction from access by DCP and abuse the bishop's limited use license.

But Sock, they both believed that they were doing the church a service - after all, because the result was negative, DCP can now say that (at the time the leadership directory was consulted, about a year, If I recall correctly, after the tour), there was no one on the tour roster who was then an LDS bishop. What a valuable piece of information!

If the result had been positive (and no other followup had been undertaken), DCP could now say that (at the time the leadership directory was consulted, about a year, If I recall correctly, after the tour), there was at least one person on the tour roster who was then an LDS bishop. What a valuable piece of information!

Clearly information worth the risk of illicit use of the directory. The leaders of the church can sleep better at night with that information in their hands - I assume that DCP did pass the information on, right?

[_Doctor Scratch]

At this point, the only thing that remains interesing, in my opinion, are the dynamics that led a small coterie of people to defend the behavior. As Beastie and Darth J pointed out, from a logical perspective, it just doesn't make sense. But from a "groupthink" and personality POV, it certainly fits a certain set of patterns.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

At this point, the only thing that remains interesing, in my opinion, are the dynamics that led a small coterie of people to defend the behavior. As Beastie and Darth J pointed out, from a logical perspective, it just doesn't make sense. But from a "groupthink" and personality POV, it certainly fits a certain set of patterns.

Such "groupthink" mentality is the only reason this thread has gone on for so long. I am amazed that so many "went to the mattresses" to defend such obviously inappropriate behavior. It speaks volumes about Mormon apologia.