Slashdot Mirror


Mormon Church Goes After WikiLeaks

An anonymous reader writes "The Mormon Church has instructed its lawyers to gag the Internet over WikiLeaks' release of the 1968 and 1999 versions of its confidential handbook for Church leaders. Apart from attacking WikiLeaks, legal demands were sent to Jimmy Wales of the WikiMedia foundation for a WikiNews article merely linking to the material, and scribd.com has also been censored. WikiLeaks has (of course) refused to remove the documents."

31 of 1,172 comments (clear)

  1. "Gag the Internet" by Finallyjoined!!! · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --
    If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
    1. Re:"Gag the Internet" by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 5, Funny

      That would be as easy as pushing water uphill with a sharp stick :-)
      "Dum, dum, dum, dum, DUM!"
      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    2. Re:"Gag the Internet" by thisissilly · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

    3. Re:"Gag the Internet" by gehrehmee · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      --
      "You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help" -- Calvin
    4. Re:"Gag the Internet" by KnightMB · · Score: 5, Informative

      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
    5. Re:"Gag the Internet" by Fishead · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

    6. Re:"Gag the Internet" by Woundweavr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:"Gag the Internet" by Nethead · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    8. Re:"Gag the Internet" by davolfman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    9. Re:"Gag the Internet" by theStorminMormon · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    10. Re:"Gag the Internet" by Pendersempai · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    11. Re:"Gag the Internet" by Pendersempai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

  2. How come nobody ever learns from this? by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:How come nobody ever learns from this? by dissy · · Score: 5, Funny

      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?

    2. Re:How come nobody ever learns from this? by sm62704 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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".

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    3. Re:How come nobody ever learns from this? by Calmiche · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

  3. Silly Lawyers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Silly Lawyers... by pipatron · · Score: 5, Funny

      I goto FOSS church every Sunday

      Heathen! Thou shall not GOTO anywhere!

      --
      c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
  4. Re:Cult. by dc29A · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  5. Re:Inevitably.. by Kamokazi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
  6. Egypt by flyingfsck · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  7. Re:Inevitably.. by EMeta · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...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.

  8. Order of the Arrow by Ottair · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:Inevitably.. by smilindog2000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

    --
    Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
  10. Please explain by jopet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  11. Religious texts should not have copyright by ianare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:Inevitably.. by Gamdang · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  13. Re:Inevitably.. by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
  14. Re:Inevitably.. by Courageous · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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//

  15. Re:Inevitably.. by feijai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  16. Mormons Still Practice Plural Marriage by Jizzbug · · Score: 5, Funny

    Also, most Mormons (myself included) believe that the practice of plural marriage will be re-instituted prior to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ (some suspect it will be re-instituted after the collapse of the U.S. economy, when the Saints are called to gather in Zion: Jackson County, Missouri [Kansas City]).

    --

    -=/\- Jizzbug -/\=-