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."

Comments

"Gag the Internet"

[Finallyjoined!!!]

That would be as easy as pushing water uphill with a sharp stick :-)

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[Rob the Bold]

That would be as easy as pushing water uphill with a sharp stick :-)
"Dum, dum, dum, dum, DUM!"

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[sm62704]

That would be as easy as pushing water uphill with a sharp stick :-)

John Lennon said it:

Like trying to shovel smoke
with a pitchfork
in the wind

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[thisissilly]

Step 1: Place stick in water. Leave enough to hold on to with both hands poking out.
Step 2: Freeze the water.
Step 3: Push the frozen water uphill with the stick.

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[gehrehmee]

"Gag the Internet" I had no idea Mormons were so kinky.

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[KnightMB]

That would be as easy as pushing water uphill with a sharp stick :-) Especially since I just made a torrent for the file in question :-) Get the torrent here: http://torrents.thepiratebay.org/4187865/Mormon_Church_Handbook_of_Instructions_(1999).4187865.TPB.torrent

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Mormon Church threatens internet
2. Mormon Church ends up with a new "boyfriend" named Reality
3. Prophet

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[Fishead]

My Dad used to always say "Poking butter up a wildcat's ass"

I find it gives a good mental picture of difficult, and not worth trying.

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[skuzzlebutt]

If you dig deep enough in the wikileak chain, I think they originally said something about "ball-gag the intern", but you know how the intertubes twist everything all up...

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[sm62704]

Sounds like time isn't all he had on his hands!

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[LBArrettAnderson]

Disclaimer: IAAM

That being said, how is this different from any other person orrganization requesting removal of copyrighted material? (pretty much all LDS materials are copyrighted). Sure, most slashdotters don't believe in copyright, but this sort of stuff happens all the time. The church copyrights stuff not to make a profit (the leaders of the church do not make money based on how much the church makes), but so that things aren't taken out of context. As has been said down the thread, there is nothing crazy about this book that would drive people away from the church, but this now allows for tons of things to be taken out of context (things taken out of context are the main reason that people think the LDS church is so weird... that, and flat out lies about it).

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[LandDolphin]

This is probably why religions should not be allowed to copyright their religious texts.


Copyrights should be reserved for Business, and such.

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[superdave80]

Ah, the good old "Out of Context" defense. Only slightly higher on the stupid scale than the "Chewbacca defense".

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[Woundweavr]

I think you might think that because you are a Mormon. Hate to tell you... The Church of LDS is weird. Portraying NA as a lost tribe of Israel, the Garden of Eden and the new Jerusalem in Jackson County Missouri, history of polygamy in Western society as a central tenet of faith (followed by denouncing that practice), the tiering of the "Celestial Kingdom" and the structure and demands of the church is weird.

Weird is not inherently good or bad. This isn't an attack on Mormonism. But realistically LDS is a church that formed as what was considered then (and would be now) a cult with frankly bizarre practices and beliefs that retreated from developed areas of America and formed its own isolated community. The fact that some of the stranger pieces of theology have been disavowed or deemphasized and that the membership has increased greatly doesn't change that its a weird church.

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[Nethead]

Sikh men wear "funny underwear" too. Kaccha is a pair of shorts. This is special, slightly longer type of underwear and is symbolic of continence and a high moral character. Like breeches, Kaccha can be worn on their own without causing embarrassment. Thus it is quite useful in hot weather, swimming and sports activities. It also reminds the Sikh of the need for self-restrain over passions and desires. They are worn with a knotted string that takes a few moments to untie. This gives the Sikh a moment to reflect on why he is taking his pants off. Google the term "Kakkar" for more information.

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[RightSaidFred99]

Don't forget the undeniable racism inherent to the religion. Basically if you have dark skin you were punished by God. Yet another thing they laughably try to excise from their "religion" like polygamy. Apparently God changes his mind, you know.

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[davolfman]

There are a great many people out there who think the entire picture of a religion should be visible to the public. Thus when a faith tries to have hidden knowledge it appears as having one face to the public, and another face to the initiates. If the LDS church didn't have these practices Lighthouse and company wouldn't even exist.

It's pretty much the same reason by which people fight Scientology as well. There's simply a drastic difference in magnitude, with Scientology making much scarier threats, and having the vast portion of their entire religion be hidden knowledge.

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[electrictroy]

What's wrong with polygamy?

This is a "free" country, is it not? I should be able to marry as many women (or men) as I want. It's my "right to pursue happiness" in whatever form that takes (and as long as no one is physically harmed).

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

> Nowhere in the Mormon canon and/or official doctrine does it say anything about dark skin.

It was official doctrine that black people couldn't hold the priesthood, though. That pretty much reads like punishment to me.

(disclaimer: I'm an ex-Mormon, but I'm perfectly happy to let people practice whatever faith they choose. I have *no* intention of starting a religious flamewar, but I really thought that that point needed to be made.)

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[Woundweavr]

First, again weird != wrong || bad.

Second, if three dudes and two chicks or five chicks and dude or two dudes and a transvestite want to shack up, more power to them. Polygamy as a recognized civil marriage/union is only problematic in that it allows chaining and isn't very scalable.

ie
If Jim wants to marry Jane, everything is cool (and eventually Jim and Joe will be cool outside my home state)
If Jim wants to marry Mary then, does Jane have to marry Mary, or can he be married to two people who have no official relationship? The problem becomes apparent when one realizes the traditional special privileges involved with the marital bond (in terms of testimony, economic rights, etc). Having the mafia all "married" to each other would certainly cause some issues.

There's also the connection between communities of polygamists and child abuse but on an individual family scale one would think this wouldn't be an issue.

Third, allowing polygamy wouldn't make it unweird. After all, Furries are allowed to exist.

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[theStorminMormon]

You don't think magical underwear is weired?

IAAM. I don't think they are weird. I do think it is weird that people so credulously believe any rumor they hear about them. I enjoy learning more about other religions and faith traditions, and I think Stendahl's Rules are a good guide.

(1) When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.

(2) Don't compare your best to their worst.

(3) Leave room for "holy envy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krister_Stendahl

This is a pretty clear violation of rule #1. I don't get the impression you particularly care to know much about Mormonism, but it certainly strikes me as ignorant to combine apathy and ignorance and pass it off as having an opinion.

It never ceases to amaze me how stupid people are.

Stendahl (above) is not a Mormon. Daniel Peterson is. He added a 4th rule to Stendahl's Rules:

So the principle that came to me on this was that if you are looking at a religious tradition that has a large number of adherents...then there must be something in it that appeals to different people.

Mormonism, for example, has clearly lasted long enough and has clearly appealed to a wide enough cross section of people that you don't have to concede that it's true to say there must be something there that appeals to people; bright people, practical people, highly educated people, uneducated people; all sorts of people in all sorts of cultures have found something appealing in this movement. The same is true of Hinduism, Islam and Christianity.

http://www.fairlds.org/Anti-Mormons/Critics_of_the_LDS_Faith.html

Then again, you may be one of those folks that think all religions are stupid. It's not always obvious whether an anti-Mormon is a belligerent atheist or a belligerent evangelical, but most of them break down into one or the other. (With a smaller category for angry ex-Mormons, I suppose.)

Some piece of clothes all of a sudden have magic meaning.

I know. It's so stupid. Like the way we just pretend that all of a sudden patterns of black lines on a white background have meaning and call them letters and numbers. What could be dumber?

It's so absurd it's beyond comprehension.

Which means either:
1. All 11 million Mormons (say 5 or 6 million if you want to just talk about practicing Mormons) are retarded.

or

2. Your perception of their beliefs is not accurate.

I don't think anyone could seriously believe #1, but it makes a nice insult if that's your goal.

If you think religious clothing is a must, you have some serious mental issues.

What if you don't think it's a "must". What if you choose to believe that it's merely a symbol of personal commitment and wear it for that reason?

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[Dahamma]

My favorite analogy comes from Joe Rogan on News Radio:

"Dude, you can't take something off the Internet.. that's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool."

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[theStorminMormon]

Hate to tell you... The Church of LDS is weird. :shrug:

You think Christianity in the time of Christ wasn't weird? All new religions are weird. Weird is just a way of saying "different from the norm".

I don't mind people considering the religion weird, but I do wish they'd be a bit better informed about it.

Portraying NA as a lost tribe of Israel

Not a part of Mormonism. The Book of Mormon is a history of a small group of people that emmigrated from Jerusalem to NA. It's not a history of the entire Americas and everyone that has ever lived on it. Or even a majority. Or even a significant minority.

the Garden of Eden and the new Jerusalem in Jackson County Missouri

Yup, that's weird.

history of polygamy in Western society as a central tenet of faith (followed by denouncing that practice)

It wasn't really a central tenet of the faith, although it was a defining cultural distinction. And, in any case, the very first reference to polygamy comes from the Book of Mormon (published in 1830) and predates any practice of polygamy by any Mormon. And in that instance polygamy is explicitly banned with a caveat that God might, from time to time, institute the practice.

the tiering of the "Celestial Kingdom"

There's plenty of basis for that in the NT.

the structure and demands of the church is weird.

The structure is also straight out of the NT. President (e.g. Peter), Quorum of the 12, the 70, etc. The demands - tithing, etc. - are also totally biblical.

I suppose they may be weird in contrast to mainstream Christian denominations, but they certainly aren't weird in contrast to the Biblical tradition all Christians honor.

I didn't take what you wrote as an attack. But I do think that you're not very well informed. Like I said originally, I'm happy to be identified as weird for what I believe as long as the things I'm purported to believe are things I actually do believe.

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[eikonos]

If things taken out of context and lies are a big problem, then releasing the real, complete documents is a great thing. Now people can look up the context of quotes or check if statements are true.

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[betterunixthanunix]

My question is: what business a religious institution has copyrighting its materials? Why would a religious institution require a copyright over any of its material or doctrines? Why would it use that copyright to prevent people from spreading information about the inner workings of the religion? No offense to any Mormons who are reading this, but it raises warning flags in my mind when a religious institution insists upon secrecy, and then uses the legal framework of its host country to enforce that secrecy (think Scientology).

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[theStorminMormon]

It is not the 'underwear' part that is weird, it is the 'magic' part.

The 'magic' part is pure invention. Look, there are a lot of Mormons. Maybe some random Mormon somewhere has said something wacky about their garments. In fact, I'm sure some have. Mormons are wacky people.

But I don't think it's right to hold the religion responsible for the wackiest of its adherents. What religion, or what group of any kind, can withstand that kind of scrutiny?

Mormon's believe garments are a sacred symbol of covenants made with God. They are not magic. Nowhere does the word "magic" appear in Mormon belief about garments. Nor do we apply any magical beliefs to them. They will not protect you from demons or vampires of bullets or fires. They do not repel temptation, except that insofar as when you're taking them off you might hesitate to think about why.

There's nothing magical about them.

"Anyone thinking their clothing has properties outside the laws of physics is weird."

Symbols are not physical. But symbols can be powerful. Other than as a symbol, I don't really know that garments have any non-physical properties at all.

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[PitaBred]

Saying "my religion is just as fucked up as other religions" isn't really that much of a defense. Just because you're as bad as other people, that makes it right and ok?

And re-read your link about the golden plates... all of those have physical evidence of, you know, EXISTING, as well as being much, much shorter in text than Joseph Smith's plates.

The sooner you realize that ALL religions are a sham and a ploy to control their congregation to different extents, the sooner your eyes will open.

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[theStorminMormon]

But seriously, last I heard the mormon church still refuses to take responsibility for their part in the massacre.

From Sep, 2007:

CEDAR CITY â" The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a long-awaited apology Tuesday for the massacre of an immigrant wagon train by local church members 150 years ago in southwestern Utah.

Elder Henry B. Eyring of the Quorum of the Twelve read the church's statement on assignment from the church's governing First Presidency during a memorial ceremony at the gravesite of some of the massacre victims at Mountain Meadows, about 35 miles northwest of St. George.

The statement also places blame for the Sept. 11, 1857, massacre on the local church leaders at the time and church members who followed their orders to murder some 120 unarmed men, women and children.

"We express profound regret for the massacre carried out in this valley 150 years ago today, and for the undue and untold suffering experienced by the victims then and by their relatives to the present time," Elder Eyring said.

"A separate expression of regret is owed the Paiute people who have unjustly borne for too long the principal blame for what occurred during the massacre," he said. "Although the extent of their involve- ment is disputed, it is believed they would not have participated without the direction and stimulus provided by local church leaders and members."

Seventeen children survived the massacre that culminated a four-day standoff between local Mormons and a wagon train of Arkansas immigrants making its way to California.

Elder Eyring said that research by church historians, who are writing a book about the massacre that is to be published next year, found that church President Brigham Young's message "conveying the will and intent ... not to interfere with the immigrants arrived too late."

The research also found that the "responsibility for the massacre lies with the local leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the regions near Mountain Meadows who also held civic and military positions and with members of the church acting under their direction."

Several hundred descendants of the victims traveled across the country to attend Tuesday's ceremony. Many of them had sought an apology from the church since the dedication eight years ago of a monument marking the burial site of some victims.

Some have also petitioned the church to transfer to the federal government stewardship of the monument and surrounding lands the church has purchased to preserve the site that church President Gordon B. Hinckley has described as sacred ground.

In addressing that proposal, Elder Eyring said, "The church has worked with descendant groups ... to maintain the monument and surrounding property and continues to improve and preserve these premises to make them attractive and accessible to all who visit. We are committed to do so in the future." http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695209359,00.html

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[PitaBred]

If the Book of Mormon says that the decendants of Cain were cursed with black skin, I'd say that's pretty much inherent in the doctrines of the religion. Just because people ignore that part now doesn't make it any less of a part of the religion.

Or do you now just get to pick and choose the parts of your religion that you follow, depending on what is popular and what isn't? Gotta love it. Internal consistency is only for people who actually think logically.

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[Pendersempai]

Mormonism involves supernatural occurrences. This doesn't make it more or less stupid than any other religion. It just happens to be 170 years old instead of 1,700 years old.

I'm not trying to troll, and I actually agree that all religion is pretty stupid, but I do think it's more stupid to believe in miracles that happened 170 years ago -- when we understood much of nature, the scientific method, modern archeology, and kept accurate records of everything -- than 2000-4000 years ago, when humanity was ignorant of all of those things and essentially had no written language.

If you found someone who had no modern education or understanding of natural phenomena but was nevertheless intelligent and rational, and you told him that thunder is the raging of an angry god, he might well believe you. But even very stupid people with a modern education would laugh at you. This is the fundamental difference between believing in supernatural occurrences 2000 years ago and believing in them 170 years ago.

Your religion teaches that there was an advanced civilization of white people in America before the Native Americans. Archeology shows us that that claim is false. This is not a matter of opinion or even honest belief; the science is quite clear that there was no such civilization. Your religion is premised on taking the word of a convicted con man that he could read ancient inscriptions off of gold plates, even though (1) no one ever saw the gold plates, (2) he could not reproduce the readings even when challenged, and (3) he enjoyed enormous personal gain when people believed him.

This critique covers only the positive claims of the religion. It does not address what I think are the many enormously unethical positions the Church holds, from its persecution of gays to the many ways it subjugates women to its relentless torment of people who leave the religion.

Again, this is not a troll. There has to be room in our discourse for legitimate condemnation of a farcical set of claims, and having its adherents insist that it is a religion does not immunize it from criticism.

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[ROU Nuisance Value]

I don't mind people considering the religion weird, but I do wish they'd be a bit better informed about it.
Hey, cool. And Wikileaks is really just helping you achieve that swell wish of yours, right?

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[theStorminMormon]

Saying "my religion is just as fucked up as other religions" isn't really that much of a defense. Just because you're as bad as other people, that makes it right and ok?

I'm just figuring out which argument I'm having. The argument that Mormonism doesn't violate the Bible/original Christianity is different than the argument that religion is not inherently irrational.

And re-read your link about the golden plates... all of those have physical evidence of, you know, EXISTING, as well as being much, much shorter in text than Joseph Smith's plates.

Right, so it helps to know if you think the plates are retarded in particular (e.g. you're OK with supernatural, just not this instance of it) or if you think the supernatural is inherently retarded. Obviously I can't use the same argument in response to both criticisms.

The sooner you realize that ALL religions are a sham and a ploy to control their congregation to different extents, the sooner your eyes will open.

And now I know which court you're in. The thing that's really funny to me is how die-hard atheists are so religious. The dogma, the conversion experience, even the promise that the truth will set you free. It is the exact same pattern of evangelism you find in proselyting religions.

I think a serious discussion about religion is probably not worth my time in this context. Feel free to message me or email me. Suffice it to say I'm familiar with the works of Hume, Descartes, etc. I've read and deeply respect the French atheist existentialist (Camus, Sartre, de Beauvoir). I'm not clinging to my religion out of ignorant. I understand the arguments against religion and some of them are quite compelling. But my reasoned position is to believe.

You're free to call me an idiot for doing so, or blind, etc. But I'm quite comfortable that there can be intelligent and rational people on both sides of this issue.

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[ShatteredArm]

(a) I think it's the Pearl of Great Price you're referring to, and (b) it says "mark." Brigham Young was the one who described it as black skin, and that book predates his leadership in the church.

But doing research is only for people who think logically.

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[theStorminMormon]

I do think it's more stupid to believe in miracles that happened 170 years ago

If you mean that it's more stupid for people in 1830 to believe in the supernatural then I think you have a valid point. If you think it's more stupid to believe supernatural things happened in 1830 vs. 1030 than I think you don't. So I'm guessing you meant the former, but I'm not sure.

Your religion teaches that there was an advanced civilization of white people in America before the Native Americans.

Actually it teaches no such thing. They were neither "white" in any conventional sense nor were they the first inhabitants in the Americas.

"Your religion is premised on taking the word of a convicted con man"

Joseph Smith, while in jail in violation of double jeopardy, was shot and killed by a mob of over 100 people. So it's also historical fact that people hated the man. The governor of Illinois issued a famous "extermination proclamation" that all Mormons had to leave the state or they would be executed. So it's obvious that this hatred extended to government officials acting in their capacity as such. Given these historical facts, do you really think it's significant that he was found guilty of a crime?

no one ever saw the gold plates,

11 people did. All swore to this testimony. Non recanted. Not that I think you'll be any more persuaded by 12 people than by 1 person.

he could not reproduce the readings even when challenged

Given the inaccuracy above, it's pretty easy to see that (intentionally or not) you're reading off an anti-Mormon web-site/book. This is a reference to the infamous lost 116 pages. Here are the facts:

Joseph translated 116 pages. He gave the pages to Martin Harrison. Martin Harrison lost the pages. Joseph Smith believed that they had been altered so that if he retranslated them the re translation would not match the original. Thus he did not retranslate them.

Was it because he couldn't? Or because he was legitimately avoiding a trap? It seems silly to say "he couldn't" because it makes no sense to say he was somehow less capable of translating non-existent plates the second time than the first time.

So this is really not a coherent argument at all, but just a clever bit of slander. Whether or not Joseph Smith was an impostor, the case is not strengthened or harmed by the fact that he refused to retranslate once the original text was out of his control.

he enjoyed enormous personal gain when people believed him.

This is utter rubbish. Joseph Smith enjoyed nothing but deprivation and persecution as a result of his claims. He lived in poverty virtually his entire life. He may have enjoyed some brief measure of comfort in Nauvoo in the years before he was killed, but the fact is that if he wanted to make a bunch of cash it would have been trivial to do so, given his talents, without going through all the trouble of getting himself driven out of several states and eventually shot to death.

It does not address what I think are the many enormously unethical positions the Church holds, from its persecution of gays to the many ways it subjugates women to its relentless torment of people who leave the religion.

Where are you getting this stuff? The Church does not "persecute" gays. Do you know what persecution looks like? Because Mormons do. They sort of got murdered, raped, chased out of several states, and lost their homes and property. Mormonism simply holds that homosexual relations are a sin. This isn't persecution and it's not even unique to their religion.

I further don't buy that it "subjugates" women.

"LDS women are more likely to graduate from college than Catholic or Protestant women, but less likely than Jewish or nonaffiliated women. For graduate education the pattern was similarâ"a higher percentage of LDS than Catholic or Protestant women have received graduate education."

"LDS women are more likely to be employ

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[Anonymous Psychopath]

I am not a Mormon, but I would like to point out that every single religion I can think of has their own kind of relics or other objects that are considered by them to be spiritually meaningful. These object are sometimes thought to have extraordinary powers that non-believers often find incredulous.

Many Catholics, for example, wear a crucifix on their body at all times. From what I understand of Catholicism and Mormonism, the Catholics wear this for the exact same reasons that Mormons wear their underclothes. Mostly to be a reminder of their commitment to their religion, and some believe it might help protect them from harm, etc.

As another example, if you aren't Jewish, strapping little boxes to your body seems pretty weird.

This is just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are many, many examples of this sort of thing.

My point is that singling out Mormons as "weird" for their "magic underwear" doesn't make much sense when placed in context with other, more accepted religions. They are all "weird" to outsiders.

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[mog007]

If you're allowed to be tax exempt because you're a religious organization, then you should also sacrifice the ability to copyright any of your works. You don't pay taxes, but you're still allowed to call the cops if there's a break in, or the fire department if there's a fire, and on top of that you want to get copyright protections too?

Fuck that, I declare myself a tax exempt entity, but I'm still allowed full access of the perks that those very taxes fund.

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[roystgnr]

The Book of Mormon is a history of a small group of people that emmigrated from Jerusalem to NA. It's not a history of the entire Americas and everyone that has ever lived on it. Or even a majority. Or even a significant minority.

The canonized History of Joseph Smith claims that an angel told him the Book of Mormon was "an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from which they sprang." Not "one of the sources", or "some of the former inhabitants" - in fact the Book of Mormon itself describes populations in the millions, which "did cover the whole face of the land, both on the northward and on the southward, from the sea west to the sea east." Smith also described the Book of Mormon as one in which "the history of America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel, at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites and came directly from the Tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem, about six hundred years before Christ. They were principally Israelites, of the descendants of Joseph. The Jaredites were destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country."

This is why Smith also confidently claimed to find artifacts like Nephite writings in New York, Nephite altars in Missouri, and Lamanite graves of men who were famous from the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic. It's why his D&C revelations refer to North American Indian tribes as "Lamanites". If you've invented a different set of religious beliefs that are more compatible with real archeology, good for you, but you're going to have to do a lot more twisting to get it to fit the original claims of Mormonism.

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[Omestes]

I have nothing against Mormons in particular, but I always find it odd when religions copyright (and protect) their material, or try to keep things secret from the general public (or their parishioners). Religion seems to me to about as public domain as one can get.

Mormonism IS weird, but so are all religions to outsiders. All religions adopt a series of rituals and ideas that are by nature alien to all other religions. Granted the LDS seems a bit weirder than most since it doesn't follow some of the direct traditional ties in other Christian faiths, but I still doubt that enforced legal obscurity would help that. If anything openness would be a better practice to remove the "weirdness" barrier.

To be honest I had a lot against Mormons when I was younger (thought you guys were a cult, etc...), until I met and worked with a lot of Mormons in college (Northern AZ), and had some friends convert or marry in. Familiarity is the best solution to most cases of xenophobia. And copyright is generally the enemy of familiarity.

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[Pendersempai]

I do think it's more stupid to believe in miracles that happened 170 years ago If you mean that it's more stupid for people in 1830 to believe in the supernatural then I think you have a valid point. If you think it's more stupid to believe supernatural things happened in 1830 vs. 1030 than I think you don't. So I'm guessing you meant the former, but I'm not sure.

Yes, with a twist: long enough after the supposedly supernatural event, the evidence needed to verify or disprove it has faded. The relevant people have died, the stones have been buried or whatever, and you have only the account of the event. In 30 A.D. it was not reasonable to expect people to subject Jesus's tricks to skeptical scrutiny. In 1830, it was. Believing Joesph Smith today even though he refused to submit to the methods of proof well known and available at the time of his revelations in 1826-30 is much stupider than believing in Jesus today; the methods of disproof available in 1830 were not available in 30 A.D, so it is not a black mark on Jesus that he did not subject himself to those tests.

Your religion teaches that there was an advanced civilization of white people in America before the Native Americans. Actually it teaches no such thing. They were neither "white" in any conventional sense nor were they the first inhabitants in the Americas.

Whatever. The whiteness and firstness parts aren't important; the important part is that they were a non-Native Americans with an advanced civilization that predated the thirteen colonies. Again, archeology demonstrates that this is false.

Joseph Smith, while in jail in violation of double jeopardy, was shot and killed by a mob of over 100 people. So it's also historical fact that people hated the man. The governor of Illinois issued a famous "extermination proclamation" that all Mormons had to leave the state or they would be executed. So it's obvious that this hatred extended to government officials acting in their capacity as such. Given these historical facts, do you really think it's significant that he was found guilty of a crime?

Yes, since the conviction predated all the religious stuff for which he was hated. He didn't publish the Book of Mormon until about four years after his conviction. Or is your theory that the state government figured out that he was the type who might later try to start a hated religion, and therefore they needed to taint him with a fraud conviction before he got his religion off the ground?

Joseph translated 116 pages. He gave the pages to Martin Harrison. Martin Harrison lost the pages. Joseph Smith believed that they had been altered so that if he retranslated them the re translation would not match the original. Thus he did not retranslate them.

This is some seriously weak sauce, and pretty convenient if he was a fraud. If he seriously thought Harrison altered his translations, he could have found a trusted third party and then translated the documents several times with the third party vouching for the similarity or dissimilarity of these subsequent translations.

he enjoyed enormous personal gain when people believed him. This is utter rubbish. Joseph Smith enjoyed nothing but deprivation and persecution as a result of his claims. He lived in poverty virtually his entire life. He may have enjoyed some brief measure of comfort in Nauvoo in the years before he was killed, but the fact is that if he wanted to make a bunch of cash it would have been trivial to do so, given his talents, without going through all the trouble of getting himself driven out of several states and eventually shot to death.

Um, he was the leader of a religion of over ten thousand by the time he was assassinated. He had numerous wives, including one whom he married when she was 14. He had a COMPOUND. If this does not sound like some serious indulgence to you, I don't know what to say. Also, he likely did not anticipate bein

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[Big Boss]

Unless you have some proof that the LDS church leadership ordered the massacre, they have nothing to apologize or take responsibility for. Not that it wasn't a terrible thing, but blaming the whole religion for the actions of a few misguided people is stupid. Should all of Catholicism be held responsible for a few priests molesting kids? And that's just to name the first such example I could think of. I would think most any religion that's been around for a while will have examples we could name. But that doesn't make the whole religion bad, it just points out that a few people made a mistake.

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[theStorminMormon]

Believing Joesph Smith today even though he refused to submit to the methods of proof well known and available at the time of his revelations in 1826-30 is much stupider than believing in Jesus today

I think you're over-estimating the level of scientific sophistication in the backwoods of New York state. Maybe if Joseph Smith had been college educated and lived in Boston you'd have a stronger case. But he had no formal education and spent his life on the frontier.

Whatever. The whiteness and firstness parts aren't important; the important part is that they were a non-Native Americans with an advanced civilization that predated the thirteen colonies. Again, archeology demonstrates that this is false.

This is patently absurd. Archeology can not, and never will be able to prove that such an advanced civilization did not exist. First of all, there's nothing more advanced in those people than the S. American civilizations that we know. It's not like we're talking gun powder and light bulbs. And secondly the Book of Mormon narrative can easily be confined to a small (100 miles X 100 miles) region that ended at least 1600 years ago. Are you honestly going to tell me we know *every* such civilization that has existed?

Archeology has certainly not proved the Book of Mormon true, but it is not one step closer to proving it false.

Yes, since the conviction predated all the religious stuff for which he was hated.

If you're referring to the 1826 trial, Joseph Smith was not convicted. The sole complainant actually defended him at the trial (for whatever reason) and so Joseph Smith was acquitted. Then there was a lawsuit in 1827 involving the lost 116 pages (so clearly involving Mormonism) and then the next trial didn't come about until after the BOok of Mormon was published.

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2006_Legal_Trials_of_Joseph_Smith.html

This is some seriously weak sauce, and pretty convenient if he was a fraud. If he seriously thought Harrison altered his translations, he could have found a trusted third party and then translated the documents several times with the third party vouching for the similarity or dissimilarity of these subsequent translations.

Sure. A neutral third party. In upstate New York. About a claim involving angels and gold plates. You think that's likely? There weren't a whole lot of neutral parties to be found.

And as far as "weak sauce" goes, I don't see why either version is preferable to the other. The only facts we know are that he translated 116 pages, they were lost or stolen, and he refused to translate them again. Either he was less capable of faking something twice than once or he was afraid of being framed.

I really don't think you have a strong case for the former, and my only point is that the latter is just as plausible.

Um, he was the leader of a religion of over ten thousand by the time he was assassinated.

You really don't know very much about Mormon history. First of all, most of these 10,000 were destitute. Secondly, his followers were constantly leaving the Church and attacking him and then rejoining the Church. They were anything but obedient sheep. The Nauvoo Expositor, which led to the eventual martyrdom, was run by ex-Mormons. And regardless of how many followers he had, he didn't live in wealth. That's just a fact.

I mean between the tarring and feathering, being imprisoned in Liberty Jail for months, losing newborn children due to exposure from when the mob broke in to tar and feather hims some more, a bank failure, etc. you think he did this for money? You're crazy.

He had numerous wives, including one whom he married when she was 14

The obvious implication is that Joseph Smith had a harem. The interesting thing is that Joseph Smith had 36 or 37 wives. I forget how many. His first wife, Emma Smith, becam

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[immcintosh]

I think the general consensus is that any religion badass enough to require the carrying of a sword should be excused for also mandating magic chastity underwear.

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[Chuck Chunder]

Joseph translated 116 pages. He gave the pages to Martin Harrison. Martin Harrison lost the pages. Joseph Smith believed that they had been altered so that if he retranslated them the re translation would not match the original. Thus he did not retranslate them.

Was it because he couldn't? Or because he was legitimately avoiding a trap? It seems silly to say "he couldn't" because it makes no sense to say he was somehow less capable of translating non-existent plates the second time than the first time.
So this is really not a coherent argument at all, but just a clever bit of slander. Whether or not Joseph Smith was an impostor, the case is not strengthened or harmed by the fact that he refused to retranslate once the original text was out of his control.

I think the implication is that his translation was not a translation and he made those 116 pages up from scratch.

You say "it makes no sense to say he was somehow less capable of translating non-existent plates the second time than the first time" but it makes perfect sense. If he's making it up as he goes along then if he does it again it won't be the same.

If he made another set and the first "translation" was found again then he'd have been exposed as a fraudster because the two would be different, thus he made up a fairly ridiculous excuse.

This is the word of god that has been given to me but I'm not going to translate it again because someone's out to get me? He obviously didn't think that 116 pages of the word of god was worth much.

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[roystgnr]

(a) I think he's probably just slightly misremembering Book of Mormon passages like these:

Nephi 5:21 - "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people, the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

Alma 3:6 - "And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men."

Nothing to do with Cain or African Blacks, but even after changing the "white and delightsome" passages, the Book of Mormon is still pretty clear in stating that God sometimes curses evil people by darkening their skin and their descendants' skin.

I'll assume that your failure to mention such relevant passages to PitaBred was just an honest mistake, but you should still apologize to him for insulting his research abilities while you were simultaneously telling him misleading half-truths.

(b) You are correct in identifying Brigham Young as one of the worst proponents of Mormonism's Curse of Cain interpretation. However, Young claimed to not be it's originator. He claimed that even the worst parts of it came from God: "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God is death on the spot. This will always be so." And he claimed that the explanation for it came from Joseph Smith: "Joseph Smith had declared that the Negroes were not neutral in heaven, for all the spirits took sides, but 'the posterity of Cain are black because he (Cain) committed murder. He killed Abel and God set a mark upon his posterity'"

In particular, the first interpretation of the Curse of Cain in LDS scripture comes directly from Joseph Smith, in what he claimed was a revelation directly from God:

Moses 7:22 - "And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them"

I'm sorry if you've been told untruths about what your religious leaders believed, but that doesn't make it okay for you to spread those untruths to others. Assuming it was honest mistake, your punishment is this: now you have to decide whether those noxious beliefs themselves are true, or whether the leaders whose revelations you have been taught to trust were just telling more untruths in God's name. Good luck in coming to the right decision.

Also, moderators? Please don't mod ShatteredArm down, but in the future do remember that "+1, Informative" is intended for correct information only.

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[couchslug]

"The church copyrights stuff not to make a profit (the leaders of the church do not make money based on how much the church makes), but so that things aren't taken out of context."

Disclaimer: I am superstition-free.

Those of us who do not share your faith have ZERO logical reason to trust that explanation, and every reason to want ALL religions exposed completely. We will then judge based on exposed evidence, rather than just what leadership chooses to show us.

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[Pendersempai]

If you're referring to the 1826 trial, Joseph Smith was not convicted. The sole complainant actually defended him at the trial (for whatever reason) and so Joseph Smith was acquitted. Then there was a lawsuit in 1827 involving the lost 116 pages (so clearly involving Mormonism) and then the next trial didn't come about until after the BOok of Mormon was published.

Joseph Smith was convicted in 1826 in Bainbridge, New York. Check out Dale Morgan on Early Mormonism: Correspondence and a New History. The Book of Mormon was not released until 1830.

This is patently absurd. Archeology can not, and never will be able to prove that such an advanced civilization did not exist. First of all, there's nothing more advanced in those people than the S. American civilizations that we know. It's not like we're talking gun powder and light bulbs. And secondly the Book of Mormon narrative can easily be confined to a small (100 miles X 100 miles) region that ended at least 1600 years ago. Are you honestly going to tell me we know *every* such civilization that has existed?

YES, that is EXACTLY what I am telling you, at least in North America. We know this land. Even small civilizations leave footprints. We can track individual Indian tribes by their remains. The South American civilizations left towering ruins that still stand to this day. Mysteriously, the civilization that Joseph Smith claimed existed left no such remnants. Any civilization that knew how to build anything from stone would have been found by now, even if confined to a plot of land of 10,000 square miles.

Sure. A neutral third party. In upstate New York. About a claim involving angels and gold plates. You think that's likely? There weren't a whole lot of neutral parties to be found.

What the hell does this mean? Because they're rural, they don't have trusted third parties? He was so off the deep end that even the most staid of his rural village elders was too biased by his antics to be neutral? Even if so, it seems to me that this cuts against his case rather than for.

The interesting thing is that Joseph Smith had 36 or 37 wives. I forget how many. His first wife, Emma Smith, became pregnant many times. Not a single one of his plural wives ever became pregnant. The historical record seems clear that Joseph Smith was not actually sexually involved in a single plural marriage. (Don't get me wrong, subseqent practitioners of polygamy definitely were.) So the motive of sex doesn't work either.

Yes it does. First of all, there are some 11 or so claimed offspring of Joseph Smith allegedly begotten by his other wives. Genetic tests, funded by Mormon activists, have demonstrated that five of them were not his. The rest are inconclusive. This is hardly proof to me that sex was not a motive, particularly since even in those days primitive contraception existed, and like in modern times, a relatively small proportion of sexual encounters resulted in pregnancy. Let me put it to you: why, exactly, did he marry a 14-year-old? True love?

I'm not asking you to believe that Mormons are right, but there's a long, long way to go between being opposed to homosexuality and actively persecuting homosexuals.

The attitude that "homosexuality is a sin" means that families are sundered, immigration rights are denied on account of the sex of the partners, visitation rights are denied, tax penalties are inflicted, and there is no federal anti-discrimination law on the basis of sexual orientation -- which means that plenty of loving, stable, child-bearing families with parents of the same sex can and have lost their jobs, benefits, citizenship, hospital visitation rights, and so on, because they have the audacity to be born with the ability to fall in love with the same sex and the inability to fall in love with the opposite sex. That's persecution. No, it's not as bad as being murdered or raped -- although plenty of that happens to gay people in other count

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[ins0m]

This gives the Sikh a moment to reflect on why he is taking his pants off. Or to take a moment to curse Krodh for that second helping of curry.

Inevitably..

[Rob T Firefly]

Good morning, Mormon Church. Say hello to Ms. Streisand for me!

Re:Inevitably..

[Kamokazi]

The funny thing is, from a quick look at the Wikileaks summary (I didn't read the handbook itself), the handbook doesn't even seem that bad. Pretty standard Christian stuff, the Catholic church generally sticks to the same standards.

Re:Inevitably..

[EMeta]

...Which makes you wonder if they wanted it to Streisand. When was the last time you think they got so many non-Mormons reading about them. Another poster said it is rather innocuous. On the heels of the FLDS blowup, I think lots of people reading stuff that shows your church in a good light is a great plan.

Well played, sirs.

Re:Inevitably..

[smilindog2000]

I concur. The manual seems fairly well thought out, and doesn't have any really good secret stuff I was hoping to read. I don't know why LDS wants it concealed. In fact, I'd argue that manual is strong evidence to the rest of the Christian world that LDS is not an out-there weird cult.

Perhaps LDS wants it publicized? Threatening Wikileaks is the perfect way to do it!

Re:Inevitably..

[Mr.Intel]

BZZZZT. Wrongo, Tex. The "Mormons" in El Dorado weren't the same religion as the "Mormons" in the OP. Get your facts straight before you start slinging mud around here. And speaking of which, "well-documented fraudster" is easy to say as an AC. What say you walk around that cloak of secrecy and provide some first hand accounts of Joseph Smith's fraud?

Re:Inevitably..

[Gamdang]

You're right that the Church Handbook of Instructions isn't very "bad." I'm a Mormon, and I've read it while serving in leadership positions in the church. It describes standard church procedures and policies, but focuses on the spiritual principles that motivate said policies, citing lots of scriptural sources along the way. If leaders who have the books would apply all the ideas in the handbook (e.g. about delegation, and helping others become more self-reliant) the church would be much more responsive to individual and organizational needs, and the leaders wouldn't have to work nearly so hard. I have to agree that I can't see why the church is so secretive about it. One reason might be that they don't want members to use it in order to criticize their leaders when they see that they aren't following the handbook perfectly (I've certainly seen members that would do this, but most people like this are _quite_ capable of doing so without help from the handbook). Bios_Hakr makes a good point that the church may not like people comparing the two versions (see http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=552624&cid=23401796 ), and I'm sure some of the leadership don't want the general public (members or not) reading the chapter on church discipline (which is not as juicy as one might expect). I think their attempts at secrecy are a bit silly and, ultimately, unnecessary.

Re:Inevitably..

[pipatron]

Not that I have anything against bashing religious groups, but in this case, didn't these people start this cult because they were rejected from the mormons? I could start a cult that worships the slaughter of young children and call me a buddhist, but that wouldn't really make the buddhist any worse..

Re:Inevitably..

[Kamokazi]

Funny you mention that, as the first excerpt from the Wikileaks summary covers elective transsexual surgery, and it's actually somewhat forgiving:

"Persons Who Are Considering or Have Undergone a Transsexual Operation

Persons who are considering an elective transsexual operation should not be baptized. Persons who have already undergone an elective transsexual operation may be baptized if they are otherwise found worthy in an interview with the mission president or a priesthood leader he assigns. Such persons may not receive the priesthood or a temple recommend."

Re:Inevitably..

[Alpha830RulZ]

Joseph Smith's background is pretty well documented. See this for a good writeup. He was a con man and a thief, who (one can reasonably conjecture from the documented history) came up with a polygamist philosophy because he was also one randy goat.

Re:Inevitably..

[KutuluWare]

Wow. So many things to clarify. So, first of all, just to get this out of the way:

No it does not beg the question. Seriously, you'd think that seeing us yell about this every time someone uses that phrase wrong on /. would annoy people enough to just stop using it, but no.

Anyway, Mormonism: Their origins are a bit flaky, but only because they happened in the 1800s and not 1800 BC. Just about every major, currently active religion started out with one guy who claimed some special knowledge that only he could know, and was tasked him with spreading that knowledge to the world. See: Moses, Jesus, Mohammad, Gautama Buddha. The fact that people thousands of years ago didn't blink an eye when people made claims like this doesn't make the claim any more or less crazy. And like most other mainstream religions, as time went on Mormonism has tended to shed the most bizarre or "out-there" claims and stick with the basics of preaching their ideas of morality. Granted, Mormon morality is a good bit more strict than most other religions, putting it closer to the "crazy" end of the mainstream spectrum, but their current teachings aren't much different from Catholics, and their rules and restrictions aren't any more or less odd than, save, Jehovah's Witnesses or Seventh Day Adventists.

And, to specifically illustrate the point:

And perhaps you've heard on the news about the Mormon polygamist compound in Texas that was recently raided? Awesome job changing the subject completely there, since we were talking about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, LDS, right up until that sentence. The LDS Church stopped allowing polygamy among its members years ago. Part of this was simple political expedience - they were starting to piss off the non-Mormons in Utah - but part of it was the very process I just described, shedding their more bizarre beliefs and focusing on a more core sense of morality. The group running the compound in Texas is the "Fundamentalist LDS" cult, a bunch of people who were kicked out of the Mormon church precisely because they wouldn't stop doing the crap they've been caught doing. The LDS church is pretty vocal in objecting to even calling that religion Mormon, though they still, in theory, follow the Book of Mormon, so they still refer to themselves as Mormons. This was a big bone of contention with the Mormon church and the cable TV show "Big Love", which was forced to start each show with a disclaimer explicitly stating that the family depicted on the show were not Mormon, they were FLDS. Painting all of Mormonism as somehow wrong because of one fringe group is like claiming all of Christianity is tainted because of those psycho pricks in the Westboro Baptist Church.

Re:Inevitably..

[steveo777]

Unfortunately that's not how it works. For the educated masses who have the time and interest, it does. They/we would know better because we're aware or can make ourselves aware of Buddhist beliefs and tenants. But the educated masses with the time and interest are much, much smaller than those who just believe what they hear. I haven't looked into this handbook, so I haven't a clue what it could possibly say that would cause them to not want it publicized.

Being a Christian (and pretty well educated about the origin of the LDS) I very much commend them for the work they do, but pity them for the screwed up nature of their beliefs. Make no mistake, LDS/Mormans are not Christians. Similar values, though. There is a lot of easy to obtain info and such if you're interested. I'm not trying to flame or troll. Ask one, they don't typically associate themselves with your 'typical' Christians.

Re:Inevitably..

[certain death]

Let us not forget the Flying Spaghetti Monster! Even tho he is omnipotent, he still is one...

Re:Inevitably..

[Azar]

"Mormons" (more correctly Latter-day Saints, at times abbreviated "LDS") practiced polygamy in the 1800's. The practice was outlawed by the LDS church in order for Utah to achieve statehood, which it did some years later in 1896. There are no Mormon polygamists anymore because any practicing polygamists are excommunicated. The nutjobs in Arizona / Texas are Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints (or "FLDS") church members.

FLDS != LDS

It is similar in name only, because given this free country, the founders of the FLDS church were free to do so when naming it. Which just leads to a common source of confusion. It's very likely you were just trolling, but it's worth pointing out for those who genuinely confuse FLDS with LDS.

Re:Inevitably..

[Mr.Intel]

Being a Christian (and pretty well educated about the origin of the LDS) I very much commend them for the work they do, but pity them for the screwed up nature of their beliefs. Make no mistake, LDS/Mormans are not Christians. Similar values, though. There is a lot of easy to obtain info and such if you're interested. I'm not trying to flame or troll. Ask one, they don't typically associate themselves with your 'typical' Christians.

This and this are pretty good writeups on how the LDS church is and is not "Christian". The LDS church maintains that it follows the teachings of Jesus Christ and is therefore, Christian. It also believes that it is not aligned with so-called "mainstream" Christianity because of the "screwed up nature of [our] beliefs". While you and I probably don't agree on the nature of the trinity (as one example) it doesn't make you a Christian and me not. It just means we have a different idea of what being a Christian means.

Re:Inevitably..

[Machtyn]

I think it all falls under the desire to protect copyrights. The question is, "Does WikiLeaks have the right to reproduce the contents." I believe the attorneys for the LDS church would contend that they did not and that WikiLeaks violated copyright.

Re:Inevitably..

[fahrbot-bot]

Persons who are considering an elective transsexual operation should not be baptized.

As opposed to "non-elective" transsexual surgery?

• Nurse: Doctor! He's going into cardiac arrest.
• Doctor: Let's get that penis off - stat!

Re:Inevitably..

[rickyb]

The title of this Slashdot post was a bit sensationalist. According to the Wikileaks article, the Church isn't trying to "Gag the Internet." They are simply requesting that the information be taken down due to copyright infringement. The same procedure would likely follow (and has in the past) if any current, copyrighted literary work were posted to Wikileaks.

Re:Inevitably..

[Courageous]

Being a Christian (and pretty well educated about the origin of the LDS) I very much commend them for the work they do, but pity them for the screwed up nature of their beliefs.

Kindof like the pot calling the kettle black, dontcha think?

I mean really. A man chases a bunch of pigs off a cliff and says "they're demons." Today, we lock him up in a psychiatric ward. But you, you call 'im god. Weird, eh.

I'm not trying to flame or troll.

Why is it that about 95% of the time, statements like this are just outright lies?

C//

Re:Inevitably..

[feijai]

Make no mistake, LDS/Mormans are not Christians.

Why? Because you've come up with your own special definition of the term?

Jesus would hardly recognize Protestant sects. They're conservative, hypocritical, moneygrubbing, warmongering cults which believe in a crazy greek Gnostic invention called the "Trinity" which has no basis in Judiasm or early Christianity and was used to wipe out competing sects at the Council of Nicea. You're all going to hell.

Re:Inevitably..

[Alpha830RulZ]

Hm-m-m. Responds to cited source with ad hominum attack. Persuasive? I think not.

Re:Inevitably..

[Hoi Polloi]

A church keeping secret documents and threatening people over them? Hmmmm, sounds a lot like some other group I can think of.

Re:Inevitably..

[workindev]

Joseph Smith's background is pretty well documented. Alpha830RulZ is a pedophile.

There. Now it's "pretty well documented" that you are a pedophile. Nice how that works, huh?

Re:Inevitably..

[LandDolphin]

Of course they were not following the "current Mormon beliefs", they were a fundamentalist church. Hence, they were following what they believed to be the Original Mormon beliefs.


Unlike the LDS Church, they did not agree with changing religious beliefs just to satisfy the US Government like the LDS Church did when it got rid of polygamy so Utah could become a state and allowed people of color to join so they would not lose their tax exempt status.

Re:Inevitably..

[Anonymous Coward]

The "Mormons" in El Dorado weren't the same religion as the "Mormons" in the OP.

It's interesting that people in the USA easily grasp that different Christian denomitations are essentially different religions but somehow they can't grasp that there are also different Muslim religions. I didn't hear anyone in the USA calling for the pope to go straighten out the polygamist Christians in Texas because they grasp that that would be ridiculous. On the other hand, I hear people in the USA calling for Muslims generally to straighten out radicals like Osama bin Laden.

Re:Inevitably..

[Anonymous Coward]

"Mormons" (more correctly Latter-day Saints, at times abbreviated "LDS") practiced polygamy in the 1800's. The practice was outlawed by the LDS church in order for Utah to achieve statehood, which it did some years later in 1896. . Actually gaining statehood was only one enticement. (It was a significant one because it got rid of the federally appointed territorial authorities, who were what just what you would expect of third tier federal appointees...)

The larger issue was that the church was finding it very difficult to perform its mission with most of its leaders either living underground or in prison, with all of the church's assets (including churches and temples as well as funds) confiscated, and with the majority of its members (even those who had never practiced polygamy) denied the right to vote or serve on juries.

Basically the church tried civil disobedience to defy what it saw as an unconstitutional law and willingly suffered the consequences until it had exhausted all legal recourse and it became obvious that they could either submit, or fail in their greater mission.

Re:Inevitably..

[phreakhead]

Jesus wouldn't recognize any form of Christianity. Jesus was not a Christian.

Re:Inevitably..

[flitty]

Really? Forgiving? Someone who has had such a surgery cannot 1) bless his family or seal his family for eternity 2) won't be married for eternity 3) cannot get into the celestial Kingdom (top teir heaven) 4)Cannot hold many church offices 5) will be separated from his eternal family. What other reason is there to be a mormon than to get a temple marriage and get into the celestial kingdom? Might as well take your chances being a moral Catholic.

Re:Inevitably..

[sumdumass]

Well, keep in mind that legal age and underage is an arbitrary age value. Naturally, having sex after puberty which could happen as early as 11-13 years old would at some time in history been the norm. So would the parents arranging marriages and selling women as brides. I'm not sure I remember any teachings of Jesus talking against that. I'm not even sure he mentioned the one man one wife concept either.

Your pretty much right at least I want to think that it isn't very Christian like to do things like this. But remember, we have placed the age limits there artificial for various reasons. We have stopped the practice of arranging marriages and so on for various reasons. I'm not sure that the bible addresses arbitrary limits and procedures man has put in place outside expressing the desire to follows man's law when it isn't in conflict with God's law.

Re:Inevitably..

[swillden]

Hard to be Christian when you aren't monotheistic

Why?

Is it really that much easier to believe in one god with multiple personality disorder? That Jesus prayed to himself?

It's really funny that many modern Christians raise this issue against Mormons, given that Jews made the same argument against early Christians.

Re:Inevitably..

[Enigma2175]

"hearsay and other stuff not admissible in any court of law" Huh? Joseph Smith's "treasure hunting" activities were quite well documented, and in fact he DID stand trial and was convicted. From The Salt Lake City Messenger

"The first part and conclusion of the alleged court record published by Bishop Tuttle is here reproduced, which indicates that young Joseph admitted to using his seer stone to search for lost property, buried coins, hidden treasures, and gold mines:

                People of State of New York vs. Joseph Smith. Warrant issued upon oath of Peter G. Bridgman, who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an imposter. Prisoner brought into court March 20 (1826). Prisoner examined. Says that he came from town of Palmyra, and had been at the house of Josiah Stowell in Bainbridge most of time since; had small part of time been employed in looking for mines, but the major part had been employed by said Stowell on his farm, and going to school; that he had a certain stone, which he had occasionally looked at to determine where hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth were; that he professed to tell in this manner where gold-mines were a distance under ground, and had looked for Mr. Stowell several times, and informed him where he could find those treasures, and Mr. Stowell had been engaged in digging for them; that at Palmyra he pretended to tell, by looking at this stone, where coined money was buried in Pennsylvania, and while at Palmyra he had frequently ascertained in that way where lost property was, of various kinds; that he has occasionally been in the habit of looking through this stone to find lost property for three years, but of late had pretty much given it up on account its injuring his health, especially his eyes--made them sore; that he did not solicit business of this kind, and had always rather declined having anything to do with this business....

And thereupon the Court finds the defendant guilty.

Re:Inevitably..

[workindev]

Fine. That may well be true. But what does that have to do with anything? As you should probably already know, dismissing his teachings or doctrine because of that is a classical logical fallacy.

Re:Inevitably..

[immcintosh]

It's only a logical fallacy if his moral character weren't actual substantive grounds for such a dismissal. If you have a scientist whose ideas you are dismissing on the basis of his moral character, that's one thing, and an obvious fallacy. For someone who is pretending to dictate morality, to start a religion even, that person's moral character is very much in question. PARTICULARLY if that moral character gives you direct reason to believe he had ulterior motives for his supposed divine revelations.

How come nobody ever learns from this?

[Reality Master 201]

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.

Re:How come nobody ever learns from this?

[dissy]

Everyone is trying to limit information on an unlimited information supply. They can't understand what the word unlimited really means. You mean they all work at comcast?

Re:How come nobody ever learns from this?

[sm62704]

See, the thing is, everyone thinks money=intelligence. "If you're so damned smart, why ain't you rich?"

But there is no real correlation between intelligence and wealth. The wealthy can afford better schools, but education != intelligence.

These people are used to getting their own way, they're used to the law ALWAYS working for THEM and can't imagine that there's the slightest possibililty that they, spoiled brats that they are, can't have things exactly as they want them to be.

To quote Mr. T: "I pity the foo's".

Re:How come nobody ever learns from this?

[Calmiche]

Yah, but what is so sad is that the LDS church has a HUGE online presence, uses the internet on a frequent basis to distribute media and is an early adopter of a lot of technology.

Secondly, these books aren't secret. Any member can walk into any LDS distribution center and pick up a copy. I've got a copy. 95% of the book is on how meetings run, proper activities for youth, how to distribute tithing and how to put in requisition forms for repairs.

However, there are sections on church doctrine and rules. These are more solid rules than what is generally liked in the church. It gives hard and fast examples of improper conduct and what the church response is to them.

The basic idea is that people should govern themselves. If you give them a hard and fast rule, some types of people will see how close they can get to that rule without breaking it. Not a good way to live a christian life.

As a lifelong member of the LDS church, I'm extremely disappointed in how church lawyers and officials are handling this. It's not SECRET. It's PRIVATE. There's a big difference that some church members just don't seem to get.

Re:How come nobody ever learns from this?

[DarkSarin]

As another LDS-born (for non-LDS, that simply means my parents were LDS, and I was baptized at age 8--I've since done a LOT of personal searching to make my own decisions about the church, thank you very much), I've read some of the older versions of the Handbook.

My guess is that the real reason is that this is simply a copyrighted document and that its more about that than anything. I've never really understood the church's policy on keeping the GHI out of general circulation, but I don't really care. Book One (which is what this is) doesn't have anything major in it. I'd wager that there are a LOT of the LDS sladshdotters that have had a chance to read it for one reason or another. Generally speaking, any LDS member that wants a peek at it can ask their bishop if they can read what the handbook says about a specific subject, and generally most bishops will say yes.

The reason its private? I have not idea, but I've never really cared. Is wikiLeaks doing the 'right thing' here? I don't really care. Is the LDS church doing the 'right thing' here? Who knows. I have a suspicion that this is one of those areas where its the lawyers that the church hires making a decision, rather than the President of the church. That's just how it goes.

The standard tactic

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

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.

Cult.

[ThatDamnMurphyGuy]

If you even have a "confidential handbook", you're a cult, not a religion...or maybe a good old fashioned pyramid scheme.

Re:Cult.

[dc29A]

If you even have a "confidential handbook", you're a cult, not a religion...or maybe a good old fashioned pyramid scheme. There is no difference between a religion and a cult. Well, a minor one: religion is a popular cult.

Re:Cult.

[gardyloo]

Or a Special Forces group. Or any of several classified government groups. Or a (weird but true) philanthropic group such as the PEO.

Re:Cult.

[Ngarrang]

I dunno. To some extent, I believe any corporation (church, business, whatever) has the right to some privacy about its inner workings. The Masons protect the privacy of their rituals. Businesses keep private how a product is made. And though I don't even consider it a church, the Church of Scientology even has the right to of privacy with their documents. Not everything has to be transparent and openly available. Even in a church. Those documents are accessible to members of the church, but not outsiders.

Re:Cult.

[Jason Levine]

Not really. Most of the major religions will allow you to leave their churches/temples without any problem. You can even convert to another religion with minimum fuss. For example, I'm Jewish. There's nothing to stop me from leaving my temple and joining another. (My wife and I have even discussed this very subject recently.) There's also nothing to stop me from leaving my temple, becoming Christian, and joining a church. (Beyond the fact that the Church's religious beliefs don't match with my own, of course.)

In a cult, leaving the church is unthinkable and anyone who expresses a desire to do so is forcibly kept from doing so. Were I a member of a cult, expressing a desire to leave the group would likely result in my detention for "re-education" or perhaps in my "disappearance."

You are kind of right about religions being popular cults, though. Most religions start out as cults and the either die out or ease up on the cult-like behaviors and merge more into society. Christianity was a cult when it first started, but over the years it integrated more into society to the point that it isn't considered a cult now.

Re:Cult.

[eck011219]

Not sure I agree. Many religions have confidential texts -- some are spiritual, some are operational.

By that logic, a lot of organizations are cults, including corporations and governments. There's nothing inherently wrong with wanting to keep some policies public and some private -- the content of the policies is another matter, though (public OR private).

IMO the stuff in this one is pretty dark and unpleasant. And keeping this particular stuff confidential doesn't allow a potential or current member to make an informed decision about their church. But in this case I think it's as much an issue of the policies as it is that they are (or were) confidential.

Re:Cult.

[Rob the Bold]

I believe any corporation (church, business, whatever) has the right to some privacy about its inner workings
Not being persons, they have no such inherent right, only the rights that we the people choose to bestow on them. Since you've voted "for some", I'll register my vote as "for considerably less than persons".

Re:Cult.

[Bios_Hakr]

The book isn't exactly confidential. There is a distribution list. Every Church building has three copies. There are other copies for Temples and various other leaders.

All in all, there are about 250k copies of this book provided for 10,000,000+ members.

If a member wants to discuss a point of Church business (how is the opening song selected, can we use toasted rye bread for Sacrament, could I be excommunicated for having an abortion), the member can ask their leader to show them why and how.

Re:Cult.

[EvilToiletPaper]

For example, I'm Jewish. There's nothing to stop me from leaving my temple and joining another. (My wife and I have even discussed this very subject recently.) There's also nothing to stop me from leaving my temple, becoming Christian, and joining a church. (Beyond the fact that the Church's religious beliefs don't match with my own, of course.)

Oh really...

The Torah states:
Deuteronomy 13:6-10:
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which [is] as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; [Namely], of the gods of the people which [are] round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the [one] end of the earth even unto the [other] end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

Re:Cult.

[JasterBobaMereel]

The difference between a cult and a religion is that cults have to keep their texts secret religions just keep them private ....

See: Freedom fighters and Terrorists

As some one above said the text is freely available but only to members ... i.e. it is private but not secret

Re:Cult.

[pipatron]

For example, I'm Jewish.

Stop invoking Godwin's Law!

Re:Cult.

[eck011219]

Some of the tenets are quite exclusionary -- if you're planning a transgender operation, for example, you may not be baptized.

Perhaps "dark and unpleasant" was a careless choice of words -- maybe "restrictive and archaic" would be better. I was referring more to the strongly discouraged practices such as surrogate parenting, voluntary sterilization, and so on. I guess it's not significantly different from other churches, but I didn't dig too deeply through the rest of the document.

I guess religions are, in part, inherently exclusionary (as is anything with members). So maybe I need to just let them do their thing. It's just that they and other religions keep so much from their members that the members may not realize what the elders are being instructed to do. I guess some call it faith, but I call it uneducated decision making.

Which is probably why I'm a Unitarian. And even we have our questionable practices (if anything ever gets out of committee).

Re:Cult.

[just_forget_it]

A religion doesn't have to physically prevent you from leaving in order to be a cult. I was a Jehovah's Witness for the first 20-odd years of my life. They use the threat of cutting off your friends and family to keep you in line. Since the church requires all relationships to be within the organization, they force you to wrap your entire life into it. It becomes your life. If you leave, you have nothing. In many cases, the families of people who have left won't even speak a word to them.

Re:Cult.

[Rolgar]

This shouldn't be a troll since the definition of cult can be benign.

According to the wikipedia dictionary:

Cult: A group or doctrine with religious, philosophical or cultural identity sometimes viewed as a sect (sect: a group sharing particular (often unorthodox) political and/or religious beliefs), often existent on the margins of society and/or exploitative towards its members.

Note that the last part of the definition of a cult is optional, which really means that most basic definition of cult means 'a group with religious identity sharing religious beliefs.' The connotation of a group that controls it's members doesn't really apply to the above post.

I say this as a Catholic who recognizes that my Church is a cult. We are a minority in the world population (about 15% of the world population) and have many beliefs that outsiders and even many in our own church reject. Many people think the Church is out to control people, but those of us in the Church look at it differently, and I'm sure it's that way in many of the more popular cults.

When I studied in seminary, we had a teacher that would tell the story of when he taught his first class at the school, it still had the name from the previous semester, 'Creed and Cult.' He walked in that first day, and told the students they would be studying Creed (from the Latin 'to believe') and that Cult would be practiced in the chapel afterward. In that context, the word also carries with it the type of worship (rituals) that the group uses to commune with God.

Re:Cult.

[Tom]

But the line isn't cut that clearly between black and white.

For example, my mother converted from catholicism to protestantism. That fact is dully noted in my birth certificate. Why? From what I heard, this will make it more difficult for me should I ever want to marry or get other service in a catholic church. In other words: While it's not the same as re-education, they certainly actively discourage you from leaving, even going through your children.

It's not really a problem, I didn't marry in a church at all and they can shove their whole god nonsense where the sun don't shine, but it does irk my mother and her entire arm of the family isn't too pleased. There is certainly some soft force at work.

Re:Cult.

[LWATCDR]

As far as transgender operations one of the basic beliefs has to do with gender identity. I was shocked more by the fact that someone that had the operation could be baptized. So if you are undecided about your gender you must wait until you decide before you are baptized.
Parenthood and children and families are very important in the church doctrine so I can understand the the surrogate parenting thing as well. Adoption is HIGHLY encouraged. Voluntary sterilization? Last time I checked that was changed. I believe that Bishops are now instructed that it is between the husband and wife. I could be wrong but even under the old manual it is just a recommendation. If you get a vasectomy that is really up to you.
To be honest I am a member and I have not been a Bishop. I know several of them in my ward. Most wards will have several members that have been bishop so this isn't some secret. That book isn't a big secret and everything listed was stuff I knew except one.
I didn't know that the church would allow someone that had a sex change be baptized. I feel that is a good thing.
As far these ideas being backward or strange? Well some of our ideas are rather old. Like sending 10,000 people to help with the clean up after Katrina. Here is some of what they have been doing lately.
http://www.lds.org/ldsfoundation/welfare/welcome/0,7133,1325-1-9,00.html

Re:Cult.

[Jason Levine]

The Torah also instructs in the proper treatment of slaves and how to conduct sacrifices. There are things in the Torah that aren't actively practiced anymore for one reason or another. I don't know of any segment of Judaism that would seriously consider killing you if you left for another religion.

Re:Cult.

[prestonmichaelh]

entice thee secretly

This is a key phrase I think. If you step back at look at the intent laws of Deuteronomy, they are really mostly for the well being of the community at large (things like use the restroom outside of camp [Deut 23:12-13], etc.). This, in my interpretation, is more about someone who is in your community who is, to use a churchy phrase, sowing discord. It is basically someone who is going around trying to get you to do things you shouldn't and tempt you away from God. That person should be dealt with so they don't bring down the community. Is stoning a little harsh? Yes, but in those days, you couldn't just move the next suburb over and never see the guy again, or even really lock him up in jail since the Israelites at this time were basically nomads.

What is doesn't really say to me is that someone wants to go live somewhere else or follow someone else's rules that you should hunt them down and stone them. Basically, just let them go. In the case of a Jewish person converting to another religion, as I understand things (I am not Jewish, but Christian), the reaction from their friends and family would range from not much changing them to treating them as dead or gone depending on the sect of Judisim they belong to. On the other hand, to put it in more early Biblical context, a Jewish leader today isn't likely to search out people who have left the faith and shame them or anything else, they are simply gone. If a person converted, however, and kept coming to synagogue meetings regularly trying to convert the people there, they would probably take issue with it and try to stop the person through some means (although not likely stoning today).

Re:Cult.

[benhattman]

Christianity was a cult when it first started, but over the years it integrated more into society to the point that it isn't considered a cult now. This is really confusion due to a misnomer. Any religious beliefs that elevate a human to god-like status is a cult by definition. Yes, this includes worshiping Jesus or Mohammad. What you are referring to is how fringe religious groups are also called cults.

So in short, every new religion is a cult. Christianity (so long as it worships a Christ) is a cult. Modern Judaism is probably not a cult, so long as they believe only in a God which no idol can display. Meanwhile, the deistic beliefs held by many thinkers (Einstein for instance) and many of the framers of the US of A would generally not be considered a cult.

cheers

Re:Cult.

[duckInferno]

So you don't know any true segments of Judaism then. The book's quite clear on what you should do and should not do. Anything less is to disobey the word of the LORD thy God :P.

History repeats itself

[Kupfernigk]

First as tragedy, then as farce. The "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" was a disgusting anti-Jewish complete fabrication, but it still gets reprinted by right wing nuts from time to time. This Mormon handbook appears to be genuine, and the Mormons are trying to suppress its publication.

There's a lesson there, but I suspect you can't recite it on the Internet without invoking Godwin's Law.

Silly Lawyers...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Silly Lawyers...

[pipatron]

1. * Religious
2. * Lawyer
3. * Rational and reasonable

Something is very wrong with you!

Re:Silly Lawyers...

[zrq]

Unless they actually wanted 1000's of unconverted heathens to download and read the document in the hope that a few might be converted.

A weird kind of inverse spam :

• Church : "We don't want you to read this"
• Wikileaks : "Hey everybody, they don't want us to read this"
• Geeks : "Gotta get a copy of that"

What else would cause 1000's of geeks and nerds to actively seek out and read a church document.

Re:Silly Lawyers...

[goretexguy]

As a Mormon, you should know that the materials in these 'secret' manuals are pretty boring. With a lay clergy, you've got to have *something* to help the poor souls who are suddenly responsible for leading congregations. A quick RTFM (haha) shows me this. As a lawyer, I'm disappointed you fail to see the larger issues of copyright and ownership, which is the real issue here. That the owning organization is a religion is an inconsequential detail.

Re:Silly Lawyers...

[Peter La Casse]

Great Scott! It's almost as if the religious == irrational meme is not 100% accurate.

Re:Silly Lawyers...

[Zephyr14z]

I find plenty of religious people to be rational about most things. It's just about religion that they are irrational. Religion is inherently irrational, as it involves absolute certainity in something utterly unprovable, intangible, and usually contradictory.

Re:Silly Lawyers...

[pipatron]

I goto FOSS church every Sunday

Heathen! Thou shall not GOTO anywhere!

Re:Silly Lawyers...

[geekoid]

The larger issue is organizations enjoying tax exempt status have secret documents.
Frankly, I consider this more of a 'civil disobedience' to bring light to a much larger issue.

Re:Silly Lawyers...

[inviolet]

• Religious
• Lawyer
• Rational and reasonable

Something is very wrong with you!

Nah. Religion is a rootkit. Once you get it installed, it prevents you from seeing certain files in your filesystem or inspecting certain processes, but your CPU otherwise works normally.

Re:Silly Lawyers...

[BytePusher]

Hey, are you really suggesting religion bashers aren't always 100% accurate?

So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Egypt

[flyingfsck]

Interesting, I never thought of the old Egyption religions as pyramid schemes, but I suppose they were the first too.

Where is wikileaks?

[cryfreedomlove]

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.

Re:Where is wikileaks?

[kmarshallbanana]

From wikipedia: Wikileaks is hosted by PRQ, an internet service provider in Sweden

Also: Wikileaks information is distributed across many jurisdictions, organizations and individuals. [From: http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks:About%5D

Re:Where is wikileaks?

[pipatron]

From wikipedia:

Wikileaks is hosted by PRQ, an internet service provider in Sweden.

FYI, PRQ is run by the guys behind The Pirate Bay. They're not likely to cave in that easily. :)

Re:Hey Mormons

[bamwham]

Seriously: If this leak is so damning to God's one true church, won't he smite the site with the internet's version of fire and brimestone? Sit back and enjoy the (virtual) fireworks.

Or is it more that the church is worried about the economic impact of this more than the spiritual one?

It is to bad, after watching the PBS documentary a year ago on the Mormons I became aware of some of the good work they do through their charitable foundation. This cause me, who had long been strongly anti-Mormon (or more specifically anti-religous), to reconsider my opinion of their church. However it is moves like this that will reverse my opinion...

Order of the Arrow

[Ottair]

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.

The Bill Hicks Defense

[Layer 3 Ninja]

"You guys are christian, right? So forgive me."

Please explain

[jopet]

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?

Re:Please explain

[explodingspleen]

(1) If you make divine attribution to your material, you de facto cede the copyright to it, because you've admitted you are not the actual author. Without a legal document signed by God, you just don't have any grounds to restrict it.

(2) In fact, it violates my religious freedom because how am I supposed to observe the dictates of the text (which I plausibly believe in) if I'm kept from reading it? It's one thing to ex-communicate people (which LDS actually has some court-ordered restrictions on now) but it is another to say they can't setup their own copy church either.

(3) If someone seriously has the secret key to salvation, it's unthinkable that the rest of us should perish in the fires of hell for lack of access to it. I'd saying doing so should open them to all sorts of lawsuits on behalf of the deceased for causing grievous post-mortem suffering.

(4) Copyright law is designed to encourage the authorship of works by creating an opportunity for profitable return. It is not designed so the feds can watch over your little secret society for you.

Re:Please explain

[Schlage]

This is blowing the entire thing out of proportion, not to mention a distortion/mischaracterization of the material at hand. This is an administrative manual, not a litururgical text, which involves policies and procedures. Nothing directly dealing with doctrine, as such, despite the frequent sciptural references that made to provide for the doctrinal underpinnings of the policy.

Re:Please explain

[roystgnr]

I wonder how those who talk about "gagging" here would actually want copyright laws to work?

I would like them to work the way it says in the Constitution, "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries". In other words, and excellent way for copyright to work is to temporarily restrict copying of new works, thus providing economic incentives for more new works to be published in the first place and enriching the public domain in the long run.
Bad ways for copyright laws to work include:

• Making that "temporary" restriction so long that old works can be lost entirely, or even just so long that the marginal promotion of the original work is less valuable than the still-forbidden creation of new derivative works.
• Extending that restriction retroactively, which impedes rather than promotes the progress of new derivative works and the dissemination of the original but which (unless we invent time travel) gives no additional incentive to the original author's creation.

Or, as in the CHI cases, bad ways for copyright law to be used include:

• Impeding the progress of history by making primary sources harder to come by.
• Restricting the flow of factual information (in the case of the original CHI lawsuit, the excerpts were part of a "How to Remove Your Name From the LDS Records" instructional page) which seems to qualify for all four factors of "fair use"
• Trying to apply economic incentives to the publication of a work whose authors have no interest in selling it and would happily keep it out of the public domain forever.
• Trying to create a chilling effect to restrict criticism of a work.

And finally, even those of us who see this as "gagging" don't necessarily see the solution to be "fix copyright law". Fair use, in particular, is a tricky thing to legislate in advance and a tricky thing for a court to decide. In some cases, such as this one in my opinion, a better fix isn't to have the law on our side, but to have the public on our side. Note that even the Mormons posting here are disappointed by their church's action; hopefully that kind of backlash can lead to these legal demands being withdrawn due to persuasion, without the need for litigation.

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?

In the case of religious censorship, you just need to check out the apologetics to see the problem. Paraphrases and commentaries get dismissed as "persecution" and "lies"; small facsimiles are accused of being "taken out of context". Sometimes you really need to give people all the information available before you can get past all the walls trying to obscure it.

Looked at the examples

[Edward Ka-Spel]

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.

Pushing Water Uphill

[FurtiveGlancer]

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?"

Talk to the Scientologists!

[Chas]

Ask them how well their campaign of suppression is working out for them.

Religious texts should not have copyright

[ianare]

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.

chi99.htm works better

[PalmKiller]

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

The Handbook, and Getting Out

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:The Handbook, and Getting Out

[HeronBlademaster]

You kind of missed the point of that excerpt. The point is to prevent people from doing the following:

1) Commit some sin that the church disapproves of
2) Request that your name be removed from Church records in order to avoid the consequences
3) Get re-baptized, thus obtaining a "clean slate" according to the records of the Church

By asking leaders to hold off on approving name removals before determining whether there is cause for a disciplinary council is perfectly valid. There would certainly be an uproar if a guy rapes someone, gets his name removed from the church records, moves to another state, gets rebaptized, rapes someone else, and then someone finds out what happened at his last location. It's a protection mechanism for the church. (Disciplinary records are not removed, as far as I know, even if a person's name is removed from the list of members; again this is for the church's protection.)

Manual's Content

[Daimaou]

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.

It about the stupidity of religion

[mlwmohawk]

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.

Re:It about the stupidity of religion

[the JoshMeister]

I'll bite. I have nothing to lose but Slashdot karma.

I know I'll get marked as a troll for this, but that is not my intent, so please try to be open minded. :-)

Likewise, I hope that you will respect my opinion and read this post with an open mind.

When someone can prove to me why one god is any more real than any other god, I'll believe.

You're not the first person to say something to that effect. There is documented history showing that people have been making similar statements for millennia. For example, I would refer you to the story of Elijah vs. the 450 priests of Baal as recorded in 1 Kings 18, except you would probably scoff and say that it's a religious text and not a historical document, although I would contend that it's both.

Until that point in time, I regard religion as a silly obsession for the weak and stupid.

What an unfortunately hasty statement. Do you really believe that the likes of Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, renowned computer scientist Don Knuth, "the father of genetics" Gregor Mendel, Michael Faraday (a major contributor to the scientific field of electromagnetism), Henry Eyring (who is credited for one of the most important developments of 20th-century chemistry), and a host of other brilliant scientists are all "weak and stupid"?

(Incidentally, Eyring is a Mormon, and he has humorously but insightfully posed "Is there any conflict between science and religion? There is no conflict in the mind of God, but often there is conflict in the minds of men.")

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.

As other commenters here have stated, this issue seems to be much more about copyright infringement than suppressing "secret" information.

Free thinking and free access to information corrupts belief in god because, "as you know, reality has a liberal bias." (Colbert.)

Nice. You quoted Stephen Colbert in order to get a karma boost. Congratulations.

Setting aside the irrelevant Colbert quote, I strongly disagree with your claim that "free thinking and free access to information corrupts belief in god." As previously noted, some of the most brilliant scientists in the world would disagree with that assessment. Beyond that, there are whole organizations with very intelligent scholars who dedicate much of their time to in-depth research on religious topics (The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, formerly known as FARMS, comes immediately to mind, but I'm sure other readers can think of similar organizations).

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.

As another poster has wisely assessed, "Logically, then... your own statement cannot be universally true."

Is there proof of the existence of a supreme being? Any statistician should be able to tell you that the odds are in favor of the existence of a god.

Consider, if you will, that you're walking along a beach and happen upon a beautiful Swiss watch lying in the sand near the surf. You pick it up an examine it, and it's in perfect working condition. The time is even set correctly, to the

Re:It about the stupidity of religion

[mlwmohawk]

I'm not going to quote your post because it can be summed up by two things, first was: were "great thinkers" who were religious wrong?

Well, you lose on that one as Einstein was not religious and he personally refuted anyone who tries to assert his religiousness in an argument. This leads me to believe you are only parroting those things you have been told without verifying their factual accuracy.

The second is the spontaneous watch nonsense. Standing on one end of a random occurrence or the result of untold random occurrences, or in the case of evolution, untold random occurrences with the feedback of Darwinian survival of the fittest, it is easy to say "someone must have created this." But god is an unnecessary component and manufactured by ignorance.

You have got to be kidding right....

[RationalRoot]

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."

Jehovah's Witness manual

[just_forget_it]

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.

Re:Jehovah's Witness manual

[John Harrison]

The LDS manual in question instructs leaders to call Church Headquarters in cases of abuse. There is not much information in the manual.

There is nothing scandalous in the manual. However it is copyrighted. If this were a GPL violation /. would be up in arms. Since it is a copyright violation /. is up in arms, mostly on the wrong side of the issue.

However the LDS Church should have learned by now that trying to enforce copyright on the internet is counter-productive. If they weren't putting up a fight you'd never see this on /.

"Secret" hardly...

[VirtualGathis]

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.

Two cents from one of them......

[Crane Style]

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.

It's taken care of...

[ah.clem]

I downloaded the PDF and sent it back to them - problem resolved.

ah.clem

Often misunderstood

[beemishboy]

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.

As an agnostic who was lowered Catholic

[ruggerboy]

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.

How about Helen Mar Kimball's accounts?

[roystgnr]

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.

Re:The Internets (via Anonymous) attack the FLDS

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

Just to be clear, the FLDS isn't a part of the regular Mormons. Mainstream LDS doesn't do the polygamy / marry your 12-year-old cousin thing. They're still about as out there as Scientologists, but at least they're not kiddie-diddlers...

Set straight the debate (hey, that rhymes).

[ittybad]

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.

Mormon != Christian

[JCSoRocks]

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).

Mormons Still Practice Plural Marriage

[Jizzbug]

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]).

Re:Mormons Still Practice Plural Marriage

[IdleTime]

As can be seen from above, there is no limit to the bullshit a human being is willing to accept. Amazing!

It's a copyright issue, not a religious one

[StraightToPlaid]

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.

It's boring

[Animats]

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.

Why do the mormons get picked on so much?

[stuntmanmike]

Because their mythology is ridiculous and easily disproved.

LDS church IS weird

[cusco]

Sorry, but it's the TRUTH about Mormonism that makes people think that it's weird. That and its ever-so-selective official history, which ignores the reasons (theft, kidnapping, murder, arson, fraud) that they had to leave the Midwest and go to a place so remote that no one else wanted it.

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.

It's not different from other copyright issues

[Steve Hamlin]

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.

It is about protection of members

[HannethCom]

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.

Hey, at least Wikileaks believes in Mormonism

[willutah]

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!

Re:Mencken said it best

[DamnStupidElf]

It's slightly awkward watching a pagan chew jesus up without knowing it. Some might say there's a lack of propriety in such an act. Sort of like sneaking veal into a vegan's tofu burger. Not to mention, jesus has to sit around in some unbeliever's gut for a day or two. He has better things to do. Just bring your own Spaghetti or Unicorn Flakes to mass if you want to participate.

I say...

[larpon]

Poor Brett he who leaked it (accidental or not)

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? :P

Fight Fryer with Fryer

[Tablizer]

They couldn't compete with Scientology via door-to-door sales, so instead they try Scientology's legal techniques. Tin-foil underwear anyone?

EULAs

[Rob the Bold]

The reason that happens is 1) Receiving the Eucharist during Communion is a sign of unity. If you're not Catholic, it'd be contradictory to that unative message to recieve it and 2)a Biblically-based belief that people who receive Jesus's Body and Blood (which is what Catholics hold that it really and truly is) unworthily, that is, either in a state of disbelief or in a state of great sin, basically bring a bunch of bad things down on themselves. So it's a theologically protective measure, and it applies to Catholics as well.
Man, leave it to the Catholics to attach a EULA to the Eucharist.

List of people trying to censor WikiLeaks

[Arancaytar]

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:

-

That ought

[roystgnr]

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.

Uh

[copponex]

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.