Slashdot Mirror
Mormon Church Goes After WikiLeaks
An anonymous reader writes "The Mormon Church has instructed its lawyers to gag the Internet over WikiLeaks' release of the 1968 and 1999 versions of its confidential handbook for Church leaders. Apart from attacking WikiLeaks, legal demands were sent to Jimmy Wales of the WikiMedia foundation for a WikiNews article merely linking to the material, and scribd.com has also been censored. WikiLeaks has (of course) refused to remove the documents."
That would be as easy as pushing water uphill with a sharp stick :-)
If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
Good morning, Mormon Church. Say hello to Ms. Streisand for me!
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
You'd think after the Swiss bank debacle it'd be pretty well known that trying to suppress this kind of information (particularly when it's distributed by an international organization), just guarantees that it will be more widely disseminated than it'd otherwise have been.
Someone circulate a memo about the Steisand effect to the lawyers of the US.
When heretics try to disperse reading material that the religious deem unsuitable for the public to read, the only choice that comes to mind is to burn and censor.
If you even have a "confidential handbook", you're a cult, not a religion...or maybe a good old fashioned pyramid scheme.
Mormons trying to gag the internet DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB
There's a lesson there, but I suspect you can't recite it on the Internet without invoking Godwin's Law.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
As a lifelong Mormon and legal professional, I would just like to note how disappointed I am in the "business arm" of the Church, including its lawyers. This is an unnecessary stab at keeping "secrets" that haven't been secret for decades. When you have a lay clergy, there's always someone willing to discuss ostensibly "proprietary" information about church administration.
These handbooks contain nothing more "damaging" than can be found all over the Internet, in most bookstores, et cetera. I hope the Church's spiritual leadership is swift to address what was likely a foolish bureaucratic decision.
Hey! This is the first I've heard of it...thanks for the link...very interesting reading.
I guess I should thank the Mormon church for this lawsuit because I wouldn't have read it without them suing!
Yup the "Streisand Effect" strikes again
Why not just pray to god about it? Isn't that why you people have a god?
Is there any juicy information in there?
If that transsexual stuff is the worst, I don't see why they care.
Like this manual really mentions anything disastrous or hurtful to the church? I don't see a single thing wrong with it, in fact it is far more likely helpful to church leaders who want answers to questions like this than harmful to the churches reputation
Interesting, I never thought of the old Egyption religions as pyramid schemes, but I suppose they were the first too.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Looking at the summary on wikileaks (I didn't look at the PDF) this doesn't exactly look like scientology material. They're a church, the community expecting them to behave like a politically liberal* non-religious organisation is a religious / political argument not a freedom-of-information one. It looks like the person who selected those highlights for the wikileaks page had a religious objection, which is not a strong argument against the church or the document.
And I don't think every organisation should be mandated to release all their materials. You, the person reading this, show me your bank details.
I'd welcome (and invite) mormon bashing on any other score (such as corruption in corporate america etc). I have my reasons for absolutely despising them. But from these summaries, this is a weak basis for argument.
* I understand liberal has a slightly different meaning in America, which I'm not aware of. YMeaningMV.
-1 not first post
I'll bet a few beheadings on youtube will get WikiLeaks to change it's ways.......wait a sec.......Mormons?!?!? I thought the article said Muslims! Nevermind.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Is wikileaks run outside the USA? How are they able to withstand legal injunctions based on USA copyright law?
Don't get me wrong. I love wikileaks. I'm just wondering how it is set up to withstand the long haul of attacks that will keep coming from powerful people and organizations who get their nose bloodied by documents there.
I'm no fan of the LDS, either as an institution or as a theocracy, but they have as much right to privacy as any other group or individual. Another organization often under attack by the societal, self-elected correctness monitoring crowd is Scouting USA which sponsors an organization known as the Order of the Arrow. OA also has self published, private material that it wishes remain so. There is also an article on Wikipedia about the Order in which editors have come to a consensus about not publishing those private details in accordance with that groups request, which is within their rights. I suggest the same courtesy be extended to the LDS, it's an issue of fundamental importance to anyone who values freedom of expression in all its forms, internet or otherwise.
"All Hail Xenu!"
oops, sorry, got my alien-worshipping loonies mixed up...
Not confused enough? http://translate.google.com/translate?u=www.slashdot.jp&hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=ja&tl=en
Scientology and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints....
Oh my god, I can foresee a whole season of South Park about such a group....
Dum, dum dum, dum, dummmmm
"You guys are christian, right? So forgive me."
Power corrupts. Absolute power...is even more fun.
The only problem I see with this is that people will read the 1968 version and try to compare that to today's LDS Church.
The statements in the 1999 summary seem pretty reasonable.
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
Based on their history, Mormons are more into disembowelment than beheading. But I think it would get the point across just as well.
I am not a crackpot.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/07/16/
This is just a normal case of copyright infringement. Somebody holds the copyright and does not want somebody else to publish the book. Whether it is this book or a bestselling novel does not matter.
I wonder how those who talk about "gagging" here would actually want copyright laws to work? Abandon them alltogether and let anyone publish whatever they like? Or just allow the publishing of something when some group decides it is "evil"?
Of course, news media should have the right to publish excerpts from anything that is news or relevant and in most countries this is legal (i do not know about the US). So if you want to report about some weird/dangerous,/ridiculous issues in this book, provide a write-up (your own words of what is in there: legal) and support it with facsimiles of excerpts of the original (small parts: legal).
What would be the problem with that?
I just looked at the excerpts on wikileak and it looks like this is much ado about nothing. Agree with them or not, I find nothing scandalous about a churches stance on transexuals, sperm donations, surrogate mothers, etc. Sounds like something any good church SHOULD have a stand on, one way or another.
;)
It sounds to me like this really is a pure IP issue. The handbook is a published material with applicable stated copyright laws. I think if you went and asked a Mormon church leader, he would be more than happy to show you his copy and answer any questions you have...
As for the PR value of this move, that is certainly questionable.
It's quite easy, if you freeze the water into the shape of a wheel and put the sharp stick through the middle.
"What do they teach in the schools these days?"Invenio via vel creo
Or did you mean "freeze the water AROUND the stick (and no more) because if you freeze the water the stick is in, then you've frozen the river into its banks.
And that stuff is heavy...
Ask them how well their campaign of suppression is working out for them.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
In 'The Gallic Wars' by Julius Caesar, book 6 chapter 14, there is a description of Gallic religious practices. The druids would not permit their texts to be written down, they had to be memorized. One reason being that as soon as a text was written it would pass into a sort of 'public domain' where non-druids could read it.
This sounds like something that should be in place today. Make all religious texts public domain, no exceptions. Religions are not for profit (well in theory) and they are tax-exempt, so they have no reason to have copyright. And they use copyright law to harass and bully their detractors. So take that power away from them.
Oh, Your religion wants hide something? Fine, memorize it.
The html version here chi99.htm works better cause it has the hyperlinks, the pdf has link references to it. http://www.provocation.net/chi/chi99.htm
I believe that is true, MOST religions can handle a little casual rejection, but one of the major ones, Islam, IIRC, has a real dim view of letting you go once you've bought in. I think stoning was the prescribed answer.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
Exactly... I don't see what the big deal is about the LDS church wanting to protect its copyright. This isn't really about the church trying to pull some massive coverup because there's anything confidential in the manual. It's just copyrighted material, and, according to copyright law, they have the right to try to protect it.
I wonder if the author if all this isn't an "anti-Mormon bigot" because of the wording and the content...
The "Confidential Handbook" is a copyrighted work. Distribution of this work on the internet without permission is a violation of that Copyright. That is against Copyright law. This isn't a DMCA control argument, it isn't MPAA/RIAA tactics against unknown individuals for unknown infringements...this is a specific violation of a Copyright, and I have to agree with their desire to have it removed from WikiLeaks.
Secondly, this isn't some "super secret", crypto, "my cult is better than yours", "secret decoder ring" kind of book. It is the "Church Handbook of Instructions" which is a guide of how LDS Bishops and other leaders are to conduct Church "business"...
Something you may or may not know; unlike other religions, the LDS do not have a "professional clergy" and relies upon the membership to fill positions like Bishop...
So, instead of having a special school, special religious classes and instruction, the LDS have their "instruction" in a manual...in this before mentioned Copyrighted work.
Thirdly, using words like "Mormon Church has instructed its lawyers to gag the Internet" is a clear sign of some kind of bias or prejudice against the LDS Church...that SlashDot has allowed this into the discussion forum is questionable. It isn't designed as a discussion topic, but a way to take a jab or two at the LDS Church.
I was pretty deep into Mormonism for a while. I served a Mormon
mission, graduated from the church-run BYU, and was appointed to
various leadership positions (with 6:00am Sunday meetings to talk
about other peoples' sex lives and all). I left the Mormon institution a
few years ago, and based on discussions I have read on various
Mormon-themed web forums, the main interest in the church's handbook
of instructions relates to how people can just get the hell out.
From the handbook:
> Name Removal and Church Discipline
>
> If a member requests name removal and a bishop or stake president
> has evidence of transgression that warrants convening a disciplinary
> council, he should not act on the request until Church discipline
> has been imposed or he has concluded that no disciplinary council
> will be held. Name removal should not be used as a substitute for or
> alternative to Church discipline. If a member requests name removal
> and a bishop or stake president suspects transgression but lacks
> sufficient evidence to convene a disciplinary council, the request
> for name removal may be approved. Any evidence of unresolved
> transgressions should be noted on the Report of Administrative
> Action form so priesthood leaders may resolve such matters if the
> individual applies for readmission into the Church.
I should emphasize that this is pure bullshit, but a lot of people who
are trying to leave the Mormon institution get caught up in these
sorts of games. For someone who was indoctrinated into Mormonism as a
child, this really is a fantastic mind-fuck.
The trick is not to request name removal, but to submit a formal
letter of resignation. There is an entire web site devoted to helping
people in the Mormon institution do just that:
http://www.mormonnomore.com/
The lesson from the handbook is that if you just request name removal,
if the church hierarchy determines that you are somehow sinning, they
will still try to humiliate you by putting you through their kangaroo
court. The truth is, you have a legal right to simply resign from the
church at any time, and from the instant your letter lands in the
hands of the local bishop of your church, you are *out*. They
absolutely cannot hold these disciplinary proceedings for you, since
you have legally resigned and are longer a member.
By having access to this handbook, people trying to leave the Mormon
intitution can learn a lot about what to expect from the leaders in
the institution when they try to leave, and they can be prepared ahead
of time to react in a way that serves their own best interests.
There is an 800 number you can call to have two clean cut young men come to your house and tell you more about the Mormon church.
I have three physical copies of the LDS Church's handbooks. One is from the 80s, and two are the most current.
All they contain are instructions for people who are asked to be leaders in their church, so they'll know what to do. Unlike other religions, the LDS Church doesn't have paid clergy, so people don't go to years of school to learn how to be a minister. Instead, they are provided with these manuals and they can reference them when they have questions.
If you're looking for some hidden secret about the LDS Church to make you go all jiggy inside, you're not going to find anything here. If you're up for a dry read though, knock yourself out at WikiLeaks.
Finally, the LDS Church does own the copyrights to these manuals. The law does offer them protection against violators, so I don't see anything wrong with them demanding that protection.
Its just that some are more popular than others.
And they all have their confidential handbooks. You know... Them Bibles, Qur'ans, Torah and such.
Only thing is - you have to be IN the clan for the books to be confidential.
To us unbelievers those books a just fiction. But to the "chosen ones" they are a map to heaven and a blueprint for perfection.
Kinda like the back of the 20$ bill. You have to be high to see the men in the bushes.
Same thing with religions.
You have to be high on the stuff they are selling to see the saint, angels, prophets and such where there are none.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I'd have to agree with some of the other posts. I think it's more of a copyright issue.
Let me find my copy of the constitution and bill of rights.... hmmm... nope.. no right to privacy.... I agree with you however that privacy should be a courtesy shown to those who don't use lawyers to do their talking for them.
Great... now /. has removed the whole site
Where "bought in" includes being born to Muslim parents. Stoning doesn't seem to be so common nowadays, but some countries (Egypt springs to mind) put your religion on your ID card and will only allow changes one way; and murders by means other than stoning do occur. It's often hard, though, in such cases to separate religious motivation (X should be killed simply for abandoning Islam) from social motivation (X should be killed to preserve the family honour, which was damaged by having a family member abandon Islam).
I know I'll get marked as a troll for this, but that is not my intent, so please try to be open minded. :-)
When someone can prove to me why one god is any more real than any other god, I'll believe. Until that point in time, I regard religion as a silly obsession for the weak and stupid.
Religion absolutely requires strict autocratic control over the devout masses. Leaking out a behind the scenes handbook thins the wall between Shepard and the flock, and may allow the sheep to think out side their assigned position in life, thus weakening the control the church has over its followers.
Free thinking and free access to information corrupts belief in god because, "as you know, reality has a liberal bias." (Colbert.) There is no proof of god and there is no universal truth, any belief system that relies on such a fiction crumbles in the light of critical thinking and knowledge. This is why all religions have tried to censor knowledge, burn books, kill heretics, and instigate wars against non-believers.
You just have to love this evil plot:
1) Let a fresh-grad lawyer attack wikileak in your name
2) Post the story to slashdot
3) Profi.. - uhm - Site down, content protected.
Marvelous.
Wander down to Saudi or any African Islamic region and see what happens to Apostates.
"While the traditional holy writings of both Judaism (Deuteronomy 13:6-10) and Islam (al-Bukhari, Diyat, bab 6) demand the death penalty for apostates."
http://davesboat.blogspot.com/
Good to see the Mormon Church taking active steps in getting this material distributed as widely as possible.
Jehovah's Witnesses went through a similar ordeal when their "elder manual" was leaked. What got people up in arms was their requirement that in order to pursue any judicial matters regards child molestation, there had to have been two witnesses to the act. Without two witnesses or a confession, the elders were told not to even report the accusation to the authorities. The backlash led to a change in policy.
Perhaps the mormon handbook has something similar, but I have nothing to base that on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bdUNckZRbc
-=/\- Jizzbug -/\=-
No need to bring down wikileaks.org. /. has already done so.
Beware of lawyers? Beware of slashdot.
I find it interesting that the leadership is taking such effort to suppress this. I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and I already know the information in this article without being given the guide. I know it simply because I have asked the questions. The missionaries and leaders answered without reservation or hesitation. This information isn't secret. It is the publication that is confidential specifically because without the history and knowledge given beforehand it is easy to take it out of context and receive the wrong impression. The guides purpose is to assist leaders in assisting members not to create a "secret" leadership. These leaders are chosen from worthy members not a secret elite.
Isn't the point of WikiLeaks is that someone doesn't want it leaked? Otherwise it would just be news.
Calvin:Do you believe in the devil? Hobbes:I'm not sure man needs the help.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bdUNckZRbc
-=/\- Jizzbug -/\=-
the factor that breaks mormonism from traditional run of the mill christiian church of what ever flavor is the mormon end goal.
"the ultimate goal of the church, as stated publicly by its early leaders Joseph Smith and Brigham Young (but not mentioned so publicly by more recent Mormon leaders), is to establish the Mormon Kingdom of God in America, and to govern the world as God's appointed representatives. The church is already influential in the making of secular policy, as was proven not so long ago when the Equal Rights Amendment was defeated with decisive help from the Mormon church."
just because it is not mentioned, does not make it go away. this is clearly stated in the book of mormon, along with the earth being only 6000 years old. not included in the offical book of mormon, but in the Journal of Discourses, a book of Brigham's sermons, the belief that Adam was in fact God, and all followers could become gods as well...
not christian ideas in any way shape or form. the LDS has since run a major PR campaign to change how it is perceived, but not what it actual teaches or believes.
I happen to be one of the bleeping mormons in the world. The funny thing about all of this is that wikileaks makes this document to be super secretive, trying to make it as controversial as the scientology leak. It's not. I have read the entire handbook, there's nothing inside that is controversial. The handbook materials are freely available for anyone that wants to know what it says, you just need to say the magic words. Given the stark number of lies that are published about the LDS church on a given day on the Internets, I can see why they'd prefer things to not be published. The wikileaks reference a well known website that tries to debunk "mormonism" as it were. That particular site has been known on many occasions to doctor materials and post them as if they were official documentation, often in the forms of scans or pdfs as to look more authentic. If anyone wants to know what the churches stances and policies are, they can visit lds.org and find whatever they'd like to know directly.
you shouldn't enjoy tax exempt status.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The Mormon Church: The 19th Century's Scientologists.
I downloaded the PDF and sent it back to them - problem resolved.
ah.clem
"Life is not magic." Dr. Ron Weiss - "If we don't play God, who will?" Dr. James Watson
... not only Joseph Smith, but the Protocols of Zion too.
n/m
I would just add as a member of the LDS Church that the church is often misunderstood. Take the stories about the completely separate FLDS Church in this thread. Take issues of polygamy or any other confusion. At its core, it is an organization that tries to help its members follow the example of Jesus Christ, hence the name, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I would just say that given the history of being persecuted for their beliefs, it's natural to want to avoid any unnecessary misunderstanding. They were forcibly kicked out of Missouri, Illinois, and other places. That's the reason they went west - to escape those who had murdered their first leader with a mob and burned their homes.
For better background information, here is a site that is for the news media that talks about statistics, core beliefs, and history. Here is a website that talks more about the basic beliefs.
So please just take in a bigger picture when deciding that they are just trying to censor or gag anyone. They just want respect for privacy like just about any slashdotter wants.
Funny how this crowd gets all up in arms a) when their privacy is potentially compromised and b) when everyone else's is not.
Jizzbug - why do you keep posting this video over and over in this thread? 6 times isn't enough for you?
This is simply a copyright issue. I know with trademarks, companies must defend the unauthorized use of them or risk losing their trademark. What is wrong with somebody protecting their copyright? Sheesh.
this just makes me want to convert to LDS (if I had a gun to my head and was forced to choose a religion):
One of the stake presidency's most important responsibilities is...emphasizing the importance of the family, helping members prepare to receive all essential...providing opportunities to serve...and showing love by ministering to members individually. Members of the stake presidency set an example in temporal welfare by striving to become selfreliant and by caring for the poor and needy. They also encourage members in these efforts.
Just don't eff up with the rest of the rules, or you'll be cast out and end up in Vegas on the pole.
The "obvious copyright issues" are apparently the
only laws which have been broken here, and it looks
like Wikileaks may have broken them.
I'd suggest that, if the document is available to
the general public (even if they have to order it over
the Internet) & if it's copyrighted, then Wikileaks
probably should just excerpt the juicy parts (as they
did in their lead-in page) & let people know where/how
to order it. To publish the entire document is just
leaving themselves open to an international copyright
action (and we all know how much the RIAA wants cases
which uphold international copyright law).
Even if a person believes that it's sometimes
necessary to violate laws to get information to the
people, I think that person should use good judgement
in figuring out which cases (i.e. US government injecting
plutonium into people, Watergate, etc.) are worth it
& which cases (republishing a generally available
copyrighted manual for Mormon clergy) might be
better served by legal excerpting...
She's the 14 year old girl who Joseph Smith bullied into marrying him by claiming that it would ensure the salvation of her family. There's plenty of more examples of fraud, but as long as the topic is El Dorado that one seems to be the most poignant. Todd Compton's book has references to primary sources for her and about thirty others of Smith's wives, if you'd like to check that out. Be aware that Compton is still a believing Mormon and so some bias shows through; for example when he quotes Helen's sorrow at finding out that her marriage wasn't just "for eternity", he suggests that that must just mean that Smith wasn't letting her date, rather than that Smith was using her for what his "revelation" on polygamy said his "plural wives" were for.
You're right that the FLDS Mormons aren't the same religion as the LDS Mormons, but that's because the FLDS sect is the one that still believes in the doctrines that the LDS were smart enough to back away from.
"Cut my toast! Cut my eggs! Cut my milk!"
"I can't, sir. It's liquid."
"Imbecile! Freeze it, then cut it!"
Because people don't realize what is going on in Texas...
The black woman in Colorado is innocent, the unfortunate victim of a beige box!
Everyone is a tool to the Internets (government, religion, and slashdot included)!
Moses 5:
30 And Satan sware unto Cain that he would do according to his commands. And all these things were done in secret.
31 And Cain said: Truly I am Mahan, the master of this great secret, that I may murder and get gain. Wherefore Cain was called Master Mahan, and he gloried in his wickedness.
32 And Cain went into the field, and Cain talked with Abel, his brother. And it came to pass that while they were in the field, Cain rose up against Abel, his brother, and slew him.
49 For Lamech having entered into a covenant with Satan, after the manner of Cain, wherein he became Master Mahan, master of that great secret which was administered unto Cain by Satan; and Irad, the son of Enoch, having known their secret, began to reveal it unto the sons of Adam;
50 Wherefore Lamech, being angry, slew him, not like unto Cain, his brother Abel, for the sake of getting gain, but he slew him for the oath's sake.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moses/5/31,49#31
-=/\- Jizzbug -/\=-
Its obvious from reading the fucking article that the Mormons are marketing themselves by creating this faux "controversy" over their "censorship" of this "hideous secret" of theirs -- a "secret" which basically extols 1950s middle class Christian morality. This, they know, will appeal to a large number of the readers of their "secret" document who are closet conservatives. These closet conservatives would, of course, never admit in a million years that they want to return to the values of the 1950s -- that dark American Nightmare -- and so they pretend to be "outraged" at this "oppressive cult" as they pass the links around to each other providing more converts than a BYU graduating class going on their two year missions.
Don't fall for it guys!
Stop sending around this "news" about the "censorship" of the Mormon Nazi-boyz. You have been pwn3d!
Seastead this.
I believe the point of this article was to leak "secret documents" and show the secrecy of the "cult" we know as the LDS church. In regards to its secrecy, read the first few pages. To those you have not, RTA and STB (scan the book). To show the absurdity of asserting some veil of secrecy, here are some quotes: "However, other stake and ward leaders may have access to this information as needed for reference." "This publication is bound as a single book for stake presidencies, bishoprics, high priests group leaders, elders quorum presidents, and auxiliary presidents. Individual sections are published for leaders who do not need the entire book" "However, the stake president or bishop may authorize portions to be duplicated for high councilors and others as needed." The book and/or the book's content are available to many, many people in the church. In fact, if you look at that last line, it is available to "others as needed." I would imagine this means any ward member. There is no veil of secrecy here, and the copyrights violation suit, I feel, makes sense. It is their document and it doesn't show any illegal activities. If they want to keep it mostly internal, so be it. Nothing in there, from what I could tell, looks damning. Much of the same stuff you see in other Christian denominations. To get a good feel for the book real quick, do a search for "ward member" and read the sentences around that search throughout the book. Good things abound.
No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood.
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb...
You're right that withholding information to mislead is not the same as giving the basics before the advanced information, but on the surface, they are the same.
How can you judge the intent of the person withholding the information?
Religions should not have confidential texts.
I repeat: religions should NOT NOT NOT have confidential texts.
Everything about a religion should be open, no matter how nutty it might seem to an outside observer. There are tens of thousands of people who believe in a thunder god today. There is no excuse to have hidden agendas and Xenu "fun surprises" when the vast majority of religious people out there today believe in completely open (catholics, shia) and even completely decentralized religions (protestants, sunni muslims, jews, buddhists, etc.) that some argue are "a bunch of crazy fairy tales".
Any secrecy promotes wrongful manipulation of a religion and abuse of its believers. The idea of it should be intolerable and immediately rejected.
I've posted similar articles countless times before, but here's another example. Mormon's are not Christian. They may claim to be Christian, but they are not. I can claim to be a Buddhist, Mormon and Catholic but that doesn't make me all three. They have mutually exclusive doctrines which prevent you from being all of them. Similarly, Mormon doctrine directly conflicts with the most basic tenants of Christianity (outlined in aforementioned link).
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
Our Bishop had one comment about that: "It is between you and your wife." I've never heard it brought up anywhere else.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Also, most Mormons (myself included) believe that the practice of plural marriage will be re-instituted prior to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ (some suspect it will be re-instituted after the collapse of the U.S. economy, when the Saints are called to gather in Zion: Jackson County, Missouri [Kansas City]).
-=/\- Jizzbug -/\=-
You could get any of this information just by walking up and asking a Mormon leader about it. None of this is secret. In fact, Mormons love telling you about their church, and everyone who's spoken with one of their missionaries know it. They're usually polite but will talk for hours if you let them. The issue here is that the LDS church is the legal copyright holder of those books. As such, they get to say who publishes them and how they are distributed. There's nothing more than that. My bet is they're getting angry because once other people start publishing it they can start to modify it and say that it's real. How easy would it be for somebody to doctor the file and distribute it? The Mormons have a valid legal claim on this one and it will be interesting to see how it plays out. I usually agree with wikileaks, but this is just ridiculous. It's a clear cut copyright violation and isn't 'leaking' any secret information.
I am not an US citizen and the copyright laws here in Europe are different from US laws. At least in my country (Austria) the copyright (called "rights of the originator" here) is not limited to any particular purpose. What it says is this: the originator of any work that involved some significant creativity has the right to decide what happens to it and how it is used, sold, copied etc.
This OF COURSE includes the right to keep it secret or limit its distribution.
And why not?
I am an atheist, but why shouldn't Mormons have the right to keep their nonsense secret to their sect?
If there is something that need to be fixed then those stupid laws that grant protection to every group of idiots that call themselves "religion".
What I find odd about many statements about this issue is that many here seem to complain about copyright law giving those people the right to control the distribution of that book. I really do not see the issue with this: of course the bad guys can control there nonsense just as well as the good guys can control their science fiction books, geek movies and what have you. I think copyright laws could be improved, are going into a direction that is bad (with very long periods of protection) and are sometimes applied in situations that are questionable.
But overall, copyright is a good thing for those who actually create stuff. It is their decision if and how others can use their stuff. They are always free to not impose any restrictions, but they should not be forced to not impose any restrictions.
However, nearly no one here seems to have issues with the fact that obviously religious group get a lot of protection by the law and especially in the US, any group of fanatic idiots who call themselves a "relgion" get protection. That obviously includes the right to torture and abuse children physically and intellectually by forcing absurd rituals and illogic thinking upon them.
Why isn't anyone protesting this absurdity?
The markings are the square, the compass, the rule, and the plumb line (or level). They square and compass are over each breast, the rule and level are over the navel and right knee.
The Masons are more open and educated as to the meanings of these symbols than are the Mormons.
http://www.masonicdictionary.com/plumb.html
http://www.freemasons.co.za/Freemasomry/WORKINGTOOLS.htm
Use Google to find more info on these symbols of the working man.
-=/\- Jizzbug -/\=-
The problem with Copyright+Religion is Religion, not Copyright.
It's clearly listed in mine. Perphas you didn't get the Amendments in yours? Check number 9.
Learn to love Alaska
This manual doesn't sound like Grade A ultraweirdness on the order of OT III. Instead we have a rather pedestrian model of conduct and procedure from a church. Just let this one die already.
Hi. I'm LDS.
The church isn't doing this to try and get publicity (as some here have suggested), it's doing this because it has a traditionalist view of morality.
"It is against the law to publish copyrighted material without permission.
They are publishing copyrighted material without permission.
Therefore, wherily, they are in violation of the law.
BitTorrent? What's a BitTorrent?"
Reading this "secret" material is about as interesting as reading from the phone book. I'm not sure why wikileaks wanted to publish it.
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
You can still be sealed to multiple wives in the Mormon Church if you are legally divorced from each wife. "Sealed" means "married for time and all eternity".
Divorce does not annul a sealing.
(This is not to suggest that Mormon men divorce their wives in order to rack up multiple wives, that would just be stupid. But those Mormon men who do get divorced for one reason or another are seen, theologically speaking, as having multiple wives.)
Women are only allowed one "for time and all eternity" sealing while they are alive. Previous sealings need to be annulled to undergo a new "for time and all eternity" sealing, or all future sealings must be "for time only". But one year after the woman's death, she is re-sealed by proxy "for time and all eternity" to all of her legal spouses.
This and more is all contained in the "leaked" document which has been online for over 10 years.
-=/\- Jizzbug -/\=-
Being against censorship, I had to read the thing. It's an operating manual for an organization, and a reasonably sensible one. Far more embarrassing policy documents have emerged from Catholic abuse scandals. This manual has a child abuse section on page 157; it says to report it by calling a toll-free number.
This document doesn't appear to be much of a secret. It can be ordered through LDS Distribution Services, and the registration system doesn't seem to even ask if you're a Mormon. Sections of it are on the LDS main site.
Other than as a copyright issue, there's not much to get excited about here.
Maybe in theory, but in practice, polygamy often means that one man dominates a group of adolescent girls.
No, you are just brainwashed my media and popular culture (in opposition to fact) to believe that polygamy involves older men dominating younger women.
-=/\- Jizzbug -/\=-
Derek P. Moore
3411 Charlotte St.
Kansas City, MO
SS#: 323-80-9292
Account#: 14000629
Routing#: 101001309
Cell#: 816-305-0909
Email: derek.p.moore@gmail.com
Posting your Social Security number to Slashdot is soooo 5 years ago!
-=/\- Jizzbug -/\=-
So, since the consensus here is there should be no problem with wikileaks publishing things like this, why not have them post music and movies? What would the difference be? They could snub the lawyers from RIAA and MPAA just the same, right?
There are a lot more interesting books that they could post that we might like to download. How about, for instance, the complete text of "Learning Perl, 4th Edition". Or anything from O'Reilly for that matter. There really is no difference here.
What's flamebait about asking people who beleive in god and his actions to talk to their god about addressing their grievance?
Fuck you and your flamebait mod you cocksucker
Because their mythology is ridiculous and easily disproved.
Maybe they wanted to keep this secret: Missionary Department telephone 1-801-240-2179 or 1-800-453-3860, extension 2179
If some guy previously convicted of fraud told me that he had found some golden tablets that no one else could see, inscribed with a text that only he could read, I'd look at him and his followers as being weird. If those texts made a bunch of bizarre claims that were totally unsupported by history, geography, anthropology, liguistics, or any other known science then I'd look at them as doubly weird.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
how is this different from any other person organization requesting removal of copyrighted material?
It's not any different. This article isn't making fun of the LDS Church for being Mormom, or for the contents of the book - it is making fun of them for tilting at copyright windmills.
It's just another example of a copyright holder who, though validly defending their copyright, just doesn't understand the internet.
Their copyrighted material has been turned into a digital bits, and they can't stuff those back into a bottle. Their actions are absolutely ineffective, which is why this is of interest - "look at the pointlessness of it all! and carried out by lawyers that should know they barely have a claim ! (snicker)"
U.S. law is unclear - maybe a hyperlink on Wikinews to infringing material on Wikileaks is contributory infringement: see DeCSS, and the 1990s action in this very LDS case. Maybe it's not: see most other cases, and the lack of follow-up action when the DeCSS links were simply changed from hyperlinks to text. But it just doesn't matter - that LDS book is going to be available on the internet forever.
This legal area is interesting in a way similar to the SCO/Linux IP cases - interesting framing out of novel legal issues, development of new legal theories and case law, and then boring repetition of the same matters over and over again. I'm not sure we're to that last point yet, unlike the SCO/Linux IP matters, or GPL cases. You may already be, however.
See here:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=552624&cid=23403918
Women can be sealed to multiple men while they live, one sealing is "for time and all eternity" and the rest are "for time". When she passes, she is married by proxy "for time and all eternity" to all husbands. This is not about her being able to choose one husband over another, it is about her being sealed "for time and all eternity" to all of her husbands.
You are not Mormon, right? How can you speak for Mormon doctrine?
It's funny that people are more opposed to women having multiple husbands than they are to men having multiple wives.
-=/\- Jizzbug -/\=-
LDS do not "still practice plural marriage." How many times does the LDS church have to say it for people to listen? What you state is not church teachings or church doctrine. It is not what is taught in General Conference or in LDS chapels.
"Marriage in a Temple for Time Only"
.. :)
'Couples may be married in a temple "for time only" if all the following requirements are met:'
'1. The woman is already sealed to a previous husband who is deceased or from whom she is divorced'
"Many Mormons assume that all these marriages will be valid in the eternities and the husband will live together in the afterlife as a polygamous family with all wives to whom he was sealed"
I guess this provided the ecclesiastical justification for polygamy. An examply of working backwards from first principles. Want to have sex with lots of women, Elohim makes it OK
davecb5620@gmail.com
> Is it really that much easier to believe in one
> god with multiple personality disorder?
I don't think he's saying that. I think he's saying devoted people shouldn't think.
Most die-hard monotheists are stuck in an infinite loop of believing whatever their books and leaders tell them because their books and leaders tell them to believe.
To this guy, if you're not toeing his party's line, you're an infidel. Thanks to guys like this, our country becomes more Soviet every week.
In other words, "Milk Before Meat" is exactly equal to "Bait And Switch".
I often compare Calculus and the LDS church. Absolutely, a new student of mathematics would have difficulty grasping calculus. In fact, it may be utterly incomprehensible to him. Were I teaching him, I'd recommend basic mathematics, geometry, algebra, and trigonometry prior to taking calculus. However, if he says he really, really wants to know all there is about calculus, I'd point him to the books that can teach him about it.
I would not conceal the knowledge of calculus from him. Just because someone won't understand something is no reason to deny them the opportunity to learn for themselves that they don't have the required knowledge to understand yet. This is a key reason why I oppose the "Milk Before Meat" philosophy: it is deceptive.
Matthew P. Barnson
I learn what I think when I read what I write
As Mencken put it: "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
I myself get angry when people tell me that being Catholic that I am not a christian
I tell Catholics this, too. Mainly just to piss 'em off for their little "closed communion" thingy and what not. I don't really believe it, but I say it anyway to start an argument. I was at a Catholic wedding once, and the priest made a special point to un-invite all us pagans (you know Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, etc.) not to come up for their little ritual. Under my breath, I said "We're not worthy", to myself. Except I guess it wasn't just under my breath and to myself alone, because several people approached me at the reception to say: "We're not worthy, either."
I am not a crackpot.
We try very hard to make sure that other members do not know about things like disciplinary hearings to protect the member that the hearing is about. If you have read the handbook, you will know the procedures that are used in that process. This makes them easier to spot.
For those who have been in the position to read the book, they can spot these things, but also have a better understanding of reasons why something is occurring and will hopefully be less judgmental and not jump to the wrong conclusions.
We do our best to help the transgressor repent and become a fully active member in the Church in good standing. We don't claim to be perfect people. We strive constantly to become better. Thus some people might unrighteous shun someone if they knew they'd been in a disciplinary hearing. In a way we are also trying to protect the people that might make unrighteous choices if they knew about it.
If something involves legal matters then I think the 12th article of faith properly covers that:
We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon what's the difference? All steal money from devs and control with walled gardens.
What's flamebait about asking people who believe in god and his actions to talk to their god about addressing their grievance?
Are you afraid to answer the question you pathetic cunt?
FUCK YOU AND YOUR FLAMEBAIT MOD YOU COCKSUCKING MORMON PIECE OF SHIT.
From the article, "WikiLeaks will remain a place where people from around the world can safely reveal the truth."
So as a Mormon I get a warm feeling when I see WikiLeaks equating the church handbook of instructions with truth!
"things taken out of context are the main reason that people think the LDS church is so weird"
Look, somethings are just plain weird, either in context or out of context. As Nietzsche once put it:
'Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast'
davecb5620@gmail.com
binded by contract LOL
Physically ambiguous gender and concomitant gender reassignment are not unheard of. I'm thinking elective for certain values of elective. I have heard these outlying cases discussed before. I am not,however, sure if these situations are what is meant specifically.
http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/perspectives_in_biology_and_medicine/v048/48.1matta.html
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1978.tb10505.x
In some cases these surgeries are truly transsexual in that the individual was identified and raised as the wrong gender. Some suspect something is wrong. Their surgery corrects them to their true gender.
I am a mormon.
I read a few pages in a few sections - from a "religious" point of view, it looks perfectly "honorable" as a text for the stated purpose.
How they manage to work around the rules and achieve unstated purposes they do is quite as mysterious as how lawyers deftly misinterpret vague laws and constitutions.
The text really looks pretty respectable, if you're a "religious-minded" guy, the way they are - rules and high morals and all...
Hackers have long memories. It works both ways.
Did anyone else read that as "Moron church Goes After WikiLeaks"?
http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-8859642576141587990&hl=de
this guy just got arrested a week or two ago. This is not the FLDS one, but the one nearby. The ceremony of the 7 virgins, who all must have sex with "Michael". They are not the mainstream Mormons, but guess what, this is the behavior that got the Mormons kicked out of the civilized part of the country all those years ago. I'm glad to see that most of them have learned that their ways were immoral. It is unnatural for little girls to have sex with the grey pubes and beer guts. They only do so willingly after years of mind control, and that is the crime. I hope "Michael" finds himself in a small dark cage soon.
Poor Brett he who leaked it (accidental or not)
:P
Look where the links in the pdf is pointing:
C:/Documents and Settings/Brett/Desktop/Mormon/Main Utah Church/Official/Primary Source Documents/20th Century/Church Handbook of Instructions/chi99.htm#general1
Am I a god damn detective or what?
They couldn't compete with Scientology via door-to-door sales, so instead they try Scientology's legal techniques. Tin-foil underwear anyone?
Table-ized A.I.
Man, leave it to the Catholics to attach a EULA to the Eucharist.
I am not a crackpot.
The correct course of action is to actively try and suppress any information about the Streisand Effect.
It's a sign of unity and agreement? Is there an EULA on that wafer? As they repeat every single time, Jesus said do this in remembrance of me. He did not say do this at a Catholic sanctioned event and only with an ordained Catholic priest. They've taken something that was free to all believers and made the "genuine advantage" version only available through them. I think Greek Orthodox is also allowed to participate, so they must have a mutual patent agreement or something.
Non-Catholic != unworthy. You should take that back. Are you beginning to get a sense of why a church whose leaders are supposed to possess special powers, but are as guilty of sin as other pastors - if not moreso - could be viewed as a bunch of sanctimonious hypocrites who are trying to assert authority over a religion that predates the establishment of their church?
Go forth and receive communion. Christ does not become present by the power of a Catholic priest, but by his own power in the presence of the faithful (not TM). That you are not fully welcomed there should be a sign for you to seek out a more Christian congregation.
I take your point that this material is fully copyrightable under our laws, and that the church is only enforcing that copyright. Those of us angry at the legal consequences of this system should attack the system, not the church, but...
Being legal doesn't mean being above reproach. The underlying justification for intellectual property is to encourage creation and dissemination of works. When copyright is used to maintain a secret, rather than to put information into the hands of the public, it is only natural to question whether this goes against the spirit in which the law was crafted.
The idea that things must be hidden so that they are not taken out of context is a logical position, but I don't think it is one widely shared in America, and especially not on slashdot. It just doesn't jibe with the theory and tradition of free speech in the country. I think most of us feel like context will be provided as the result of any serious public conversation.
Beyond that, this is a religious document, and I think a lot of people especially feel that religious documents should not be secret. If it is part of your religion and you are a universal faith (Mormonism is), then you should want to share it. With religion, copyright presumably plays no role in encouraging creation of works, because salvation, not profit, is supposed to be the goal.
Finally, I think the secrecy involved in this case reminds people of an aspect of LDS they mistrust, which is its highly centralized control of their adherents. The thing that really separates a religion from a cult is that the life of a cult is directed from the top down, usually by a charismatic leader, and the life of a religion boils up from ground level of the faithful, with only a certain amount of control possible by religious leaders. LDS clearly falls on the religion side of that spectrum, but the fact that it is more centrally controlled than other major denominations makes people nervous. Secrecy with documents just reminds people of the fact that LDS is centralized enough to have such secrecy.
omnia tua castra sunt nobis
List of organizations who wanted to censor WikiLeaks:
- US Department of Defense
- Swiss Bank Julius Baer
- Church of Scientology
- Church of Latter-Day Saints
- China
List of organizations that have succeeded:
-
So your doctrines don't include racism, they just include the belief that skin color has been used to set apart the righteous from the unrighteous? What's your definition of racism, if a correlation between righteousness and inherited skin color doesn't qualify? A corpse flower by any other name would smell as awful, to make an old analogy a bit more direct.
As for Joseph Smith's actions, they didn't reflect on any principles that weren't subject to revision at whim. That's why he could preach monogamy in public and polygamy in private, preach in favor of abolitionism in the North and against it in the South. If he liked a black man enough to ordain him after writing scriptures forbidding it, that doesn't mean anything more than when he started plural marriage after quoting scriptures forbidding it or when he added already-married women to his "plural wives" after writing D&C 132:61. Smith simply felt that he controlled the rules, not vice versa. Of course that would leave his successors to decide whether to "do as I say, not as I do"; you can blame Brigham Young for taking a bad idea even farther, but not for coming up with it in the first place, not when he and the Mormon subgroup he was trying to lead had already been taught that it was part of God-revealed scripture.
But back to that "internal consistency": you seem to be arguing that because Joseph Smith's behavior wasn't always consistent with his scriptures, yours doesn't need to be consistent either. Do you think that claim refutes PitaBred's (admittedly too rudely expressed) point, or just strengthens it?
Good luck finding someone without cognitive bias; there's no such person. For myself, it wasn't until I was investigating Mormonism that I could take a less biased look at my own religion. "Those are really weak apologetics when you aren't already biased to believe their conclusions" tends to lead to "What would an objective outsider think of my own apologetics?" all too easily. Perhaps if you were to investigate the FLDS claims (or the Jehovah's Witnesses, whatever) you'd get some of the same perspective? But I doubt that that's a guarantee. I was stunned when hearing a local Mormon leader rail against the idea of raising children to choose their religious beliefs for themselves after growing up, because he thought that would be likely to lose many children to Mormonism altogether. Even if someone realizes that their beliefs aren't likely to appeal to an unbiased adult, that's still not necessarily enough to lead to the obvious corollary.
I realize that this is Slashdot, and the Mormon church is a Christian religion (No matter what Baptists say), So most posts are going to be against them, but...
The issue here is copyright. These were copyrighted books, so if it gets to court, the wiki folks are guaranteed to loose, fast. They have no legal case. it just depends on how far the church wants to push it. If they want to push it.
It could be Napster all over again. Napster never had a ghost of a chance in court either. They were just blatantly violating the law. So are the Wiki folks. If the Mormon church wants to, they could end up OWNING wikileaks and maybe wikipedia too.
I don't think that will be an outcome either side will want. But, Wikileaks can only lose.
Well, given that a Roman Emperor decided what would become the Bible three hundred years after the fact, you don't have much place to say anything at all. In another hundred and fifty years, these issues with true early Mormon thought will be whitewashed, just as the ideas that didn't turn out to be popular were weeded out of the official version of events for a good two hundred years after Christ died.
Religions are continually liberalized to remain relevant to modern society. And you think this criticism of your pink unicorn is different from his pink unicorn, it's doing it's true job of preventing you from thinking rationally.
This is an easy case that the church will easily prevail on, should they take it to court. It is a clear copyright violation and WAY outside of First Amendment protection. If wikileaks doesn't want to be blocked from within the US (which the LDS church could achieve with an injunction), it would be wise to take this down. This would be a stupid case to lose such a valuable resource over.
What's the big deal? A complete copy of the handbook is available at http://www.provocation.net/chi/chi00.htm
I was involved in a similar situation several years ago, when Palm Pilots were just becoming popular. The LDS scriptures were (and are) freely available on its website (www.lds.org). I downloaded the html files (via wget), removed all extra formatting using several perl scripts, and converted them to iSilo format for use on a Palm Pilot. I then posted the iSilo files on the web. My brother, who ran the website, received a letter from the church HQ requesting that the copyrighted files be removed. When I called and spoke to the head of the church's copyright office, the reasoning was this: the church's scriptures are extrememly important in conveying church doctrine and policy, and hence every effort must be taken to ensure accuracy. Thus, they are only allowed to be distributed through official church channels. They are not secret; anybody can read them online, or buy them at a bookstore (www.deseretbook.com), etc.
I see the same thing here. The church handbook of instructions conveys official church policy. If it is distributed through other-than-official channels, errors might creep in (intentionally or not). Thus, the church has an interest in ensuring accurate distribution of the material.
The material is copyrighted to enable the church to control distribution for these very reasons. They have to enforce that copyright.
It is not as often done these days, but in days past, if a child's genitalia were ambiguous, the doctors tended to take a hand in things.
From what we understand now, they often acted a bit too quickly and more in the interest of social acceptability than in the ultimate health of the child. (Don't understand social acceptability? Think "politically correct" and translate it back on the time axis about sixty or so years.)
Other kinds of non-elective surgery, there are some physical ambiguities can be a threat to health. There is more information about the possible reasons that could fall into the class of non-elective at sources such as wikipedia and your local health clinic.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
What does copyright have to do with a tax exempt status? Copyright pertains to controlling who has the RIGHT to COPY your published works and has nothing to do with taxation. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess the LDS church does not profit much monetarily from giving away its publications free of charge. BTW if you own a religious text open it up and I'll bet there is a copyright page, and if you don't next time you're in a hotel room open up the dresser drawer, pull out the Gideon's and you'll see the same.
If you like history, read the old testament, if you enjoy fiction, read the new testament, and if you like science fiction, well the Book of Mormon is right up your alley.
About the CHI (Mormon Cult's Handbook of Instructions):
Wonder what it says about interracial marriage?
"Strongly encourages against it unless absolutely necessary, e.g., baby on the way..."
Wonder what it says about abortion?
"Strongly encourages against it unless absolutely necessary, e.g., see above..."
Wonder what it says about exorcism?
"Strongly encourages against it unless absolutely necessary, e.g., a BYU dorm prank..."
Wonder what it says about associating with apostates?
"Strongly encourages against it unless absolutely necessary, e.g., arguing with them on SLTrib comment pages and TribTalk forums or trolling their exmormon.org site..."
Wonder what it says about sexual abuse of a child?
"Strongly encourages against it unless absolutely necessary..." er, strike that; "Strongly encourages looking the other way or blaming the child in some way, if absolutely possible or necessary..."
Wonder what it says about the Masons?
"Strongly encourages no discussion about them unless absolutely necessary... especially at the veil, in the Celestial Room or during a temple recommend interview."
Wonder what it says about voicing political agendas in church?
"Strongly encourages against it unless it's not anti-Republican or pro-Liberal or absolutely necessary, such as fighting gay marriage, gay rights, or gays period..."
Wonder what it says about world domination by Mormon Church?
"Strongly encourages it unless absolutely impossible, which it is; hence, strongly encourages against talking about it..."
Wonder what it says about polygamy?
"No comment."
Why do they want to keep it from public consumption? Because it's so totally feckless and insipid that only a complete moron would need to refer to it and, by-golly, that's exactly who they had it copy-written for.
www.mormon.org
Truly you have a dizzying intellect.
Comparing the Mormons to the Scientologists is a strawman at best. The Scientologists are trying to ban all nay-saying against them. They are trying to ban people saying they aren't a church or that they don't have legitimate beliefs. What the Mormon Church is doing, on the other hand, is trying to ban the release of:
1. Copyrighted materials
2. Sacred documents that are not meant for those not of their faith
The reasoning behind this is they don't want people who don't have explicit spiritual authority (in their eyes) doing these sacred ordinances or altering them or making a mockery of their sacred ordinances. It's much like if I were to go to a Catholic church and yell "HAIL SATAN!" or "THE POPE IS SATAN!" Or, to hit a little more close to home (because no one REALLY cares about hurting Catholics) if I were to flush a Qu'ran down the toilet or heaven forbid I draw a picture of Mohammed. The Mormons just don't want their sacred things defiled.
$h|t like this and the Scientologists, are exactly why WikiLeaks should have been a Tor hidden service from the beginning.
At least I've made my point that this is the "most misunderstood matter of Mormon doctrine"!
Personally, I take the modern Mormons' fear and rejection of the idea that women can and will have multiple husbands as a Satanic influence upon the Church. If my mother is to change her mind as to her opinion of her ex-husbands, it will not be for the worse in rejecting them! It is like you think the removal of the veil of ignorance will have the opposite effect of imposing more ignorance upon her mind.
As Mormons we know that women hold all of the celestial creative powers, and that their role in the eternities is, for the most part, a mystery. We men hold the keys to this creative power, but it is their power (much like the queen of a beehive). We know the power to create us came from our Heavenly Mother. If the human vessel is like a car, then men are the keys and women are the engines.
As a modern Mormon, you have no problem imagining that your key can fit into the engines of many women. But through Satanic influence, you are repulsed by (or at least you tend to reject) the idea that your woman's engine can/will accept many keys!
My mother understands very clearly that she will practice polygamy in the next life and that she is not worthy to do so in this life. These are things I have been taught by my mother, who has been given the gift of certain pinholes through the veil. (My mother told her parents about the pre-existence when she was 4 years old, about remembering her parents there and choosing to come down to her family and her parents here. My mother grew up knowing about the pre-existence long before she converted to Mormonism.)
What I linked you to was not some mere "letter" with possible mistakes; it was an official communique from the Relief Society to the government of the United States!
-=/\- Jizzbug -/\=-
It seems to me very plausible that women "can and will have multiple husbands"--after all the Handbook says that a deceased woman may be sealed to all of her lawful husbands. But I'm not about to jump the gun (you, on the other hand, are perfectly willing to jump the gun) to say that all of these men will be that woman's eternal companion. The handbook just doesn't say that. And if that is the case, then what is the purpose of the extra restrictions on when and how a woman may be sealed to multiple men? Don't take that to mean I'm rejecting your hypothesis--I'm merely pointing out that there is some indicia to the contrary. Here, I'll sum it up: The statement you are trying to make just plain has not been revealed to us common folk. Has it not been revealed because it's not true or has it not been revealed despite its truth (as with many other truths)? That I don't know, and will not pretend to know.
As for the letter from the relief society--no matter how official it was back in the day, you give me no reason why it should trump an Official Handbook of Instruction written far more recently after much much more revelation. So that thing I will stick to: until you find me something worthy of trumping a clear unequivocal statement in the 1999 Handbook of Instructions, I will stand by my current understanding that a woman while alive may be sealed to only one man, no matter whether the seal is for time or for eternity. After her death, on the other hand, I take no position aside from or beyond the language in the handbook (as discussed above).
It was a blatent and fraudulent attack at the time, and there is no reason to believe any differently now. The accusation was made when no Spaulding Manuscript was available. When one was finally found (recently) there began to be claims of a longer version. Give me a break.
Place it in historical context. Many people felt threatened by the doctrinal teachings and social solidarity of the church. Many conflicting lies were issued, schemes were put into action, and mobs were formed to try to destroy the church. This much is very easy to prove historically. The Spaulding Manuscript lie doesn't make sense until you try to contort historical records to try to prove it. Even then, you have to squint and cover one eye.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
There were a few posts that I do honor and praise for your well thought out responses.
Other posts have been poorly constructed - especially those that used lower language, crude comments, and biased attacks. To these I recommend education and diligent study of the principles of debate and reasoning.
If the Church in question chooses to protect the intellectual property that is theirs to protect, is it not their right to do so?
Simply because there are documents or books that are protected or held in reserve does not mean that they contain "secrets" or darker deeds - for would you not hold in confidence a journal or a personal letter from a loved one? Such documents could be shared, but would you put them on the internet for all to read? Think back to grade school, a child's first crush - he or she writes a nice note to his or her sweetheart, only to have it snatched up by the class bully who waves it about reading and ranting the personal message for all to hear.
Enter the business world, and you will find that the same principles apply. Certain documents are authorized only for management, others for IT personnel, and others still for programmers. I dare say that the programmers would have little need to handle the complete payroll beyond those policies that are specific to them as I'm certain you can agree that certain items should be held in confidence, and as to the programmers' documentation, I very much doubt that management would make heads or tails of it.
Any and every organization has need to properly channel information, otherwise the result would be chaos. There are also those that would seek to abuse such information, therefore should there not be measures taken to protect that information? Again, I see no evidence that this information is meant to be "secret" only properly channeled.
Being that it is the manual for their leadership, would it not be easier to approach one of their leaders and ask a valid question? After all, how much easier is it to approach an accountant than to read through all the tax laws?
As a student of the Bible myself, I think we would all do well to simplify the situation - rather than exploring all the issues and branching all the angles, there's only one golden question we need to ask ourselves - Would I want others to do this to unto me?
Where the Mormons value their leadership manual as a reserved document, Wikileaks also values the anonymity of its contributors. Were the situation reversed and the Mormons to publish a document containing a list of Wikileaks' sources and the individuals who provided content to their website, I imagine that Wikileaks would promptly request that they remove the list from the public eye.
What if it is was your journal, your personal letter, your daily schedule, payroll, credit score, picture, or video? Would you not request and ask that your rights be honored?
The resolution to this situation is simple - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Wikileaks should honor the Mormon's right to worship as is their constitutional right to do so, as it is also their right to intellectual property. I wouldn't want my rights taken from me, would you?
A single link to a single slanted book gets 5/informative?!?!? Oh yeah ... we're on slashdot ... I keep forgetting that
But one must admit your broad base of study is staggering (questionable if you've even read past the title of the book). But at least one item in your argument is semi-valid ... you admit 'conjecture'. But that's the most intelligent part of your post/argument.
A few more links in case you or others are willing to read more than one slanted title or account (likely, others than the pp could figure this out though)
http://www.amazon.com/Joseph-Smith-Rough-Stone-Rolling/dp/1400077532/
http://www.amazon.com/Book-Mormon-Another-Testament-Christ/dp/038551316X ("...by their fruits, ye shall know them" ... but you have to RTB first) ... or just query 'Joseph Smith' and look at more than one book (yep .. that's possible with today's technology)
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=joseph+smith&x=0&y=0
Que Deus te de em dobro o que me desejas
[May God give you double that which you wish for me]
> the Mormon "how to convert Christian" handbook
Can't find that one on wikileaks. Do you have a URL?