Are you interested in the truth at all? Yes; that's why I asked for correction in case of error. However, not all of us have the time to research everything we say the moment we say it. When I wrote that post, I was heading out the door for a haircut appointment. My brief perusal of Linus' wikipedia page (which I had open at the time) turned up nothing, but since I recalled reading something along those lines in an article, I used it as the example. In any case, I was not far off; see below.
In addition to being interested in the truth, I am interested in helping other people, which you seem very bad at doing.
You are just recycling FUD and stating completely baseless opinions. Please point out what I posted that was "FUD" and "completely baseless opinions".
You clearly don't know anything about the history of communism, anarchism, or free software; and your grasp on psychology doesn't seem too strong, either. It was strong enough to tell you were trolling, and it's strong enough to know the following:
Communism has never worked, historically, unless it has been enforced by violence or the threat of violence (as I stated elsewhere), making it more a dictatorship than anything. Please point to an example of a truly communist society in history.
Anarchy cannot work, since it is the lack of government, and given the selfish and power-hungry nature of some of the human populace, some would seek to assert their will on others, and we'd be back into Feudalism pretty quickly. If you think I'm wrong, please point to a truly anarchic group of people in history that did not fall into feudalism or something similar.
As for free software... Being mistaken on which foundation pays Torvalds so he can maintain the Linux kernel does not qualify as "knowing nothing about the history of free software". I'd wager I know as much as most/.ers.
For reference, it is the Linux Foundation (formerly the Open Source Development Labs before they merged with the Free Standards Group) that pays Linus. Exact reference here.
Your post was a colossal waste of time. You seem to be saying this based on one assumption: that an erroneous fact invalidates my argument.
The fact remains, Torvalds is paid to maintain the kernel. Other organizations do the same thing. Google pays employees to work on open source software. Mozilla funds the development of Firefox and Thunderbird.
So, my original point is still valid. You may disagree with it, but that does not make it a "colossal waste of time."
Learn to interact respectfully with society. You obviously need it.
Every gamer who paid for FS2 owns a chunk of FS2 and should have a say in opening up the source after it's sales period. I disagree. I do not believe that purchasing a copy of a game means you own a portion of the IP of that game (which is what you mean). That would make it like stock in the game, which would mean it is devalued by every copy of the game sold. If you buy the only copy sold, do you become the sole owner of the game's IP? Of course not; the publisher is free to sell more copies.
Source code is a creation as surely as a painting is a creation, and should be protected as such. Surely you do not argue that everyone who buys a duplicate of a painting becomes a part owner of the original painting?
That said, I don't think it should be possible to extend copyrights or patents indefinitely; instead they should last some fixed number of years (possibly a different number depending on what type of product it is)... long enough for the original creator to profit from it, if they care to, but not long enough that the original creator can stop creating new things.
Under that scenario, the copyright on a video game's source code and the associated artwork would end some fixed number of years after the game is released, at which point it would be released to the public.
Just so you know I actually looked, sense 2b of your definition says "to point out usually for amendment". Emphasis mine.
I did not say "tell me whether I'm wrong." I said "correct me if I'm wrong", which clearly implies that the fact I was presenting ("Linus Torvalds is paid by the FSF to maintain the Linux kernel") should be corrected if necessary. The fact that the comment requesting correction was an aside in the middle of the purported fact gives further strength to the implication.
If I am indeed incorrect, and if you know the correction, then saying "You're wrong" without presenting the correction is simply a troll (albeit a successful one).
Of course, if you have no idea whether I'm correct or not, then your comment is a troll anyway.
You're absolutely right. Of course, we have to start somewhere - and the currently rising generation is as good a place to start as any. Inevitably some small percentage of the currently rising generation will obtain some form of wealth, so if they're taught to assist others with that wealth instead of hoarding it in order to buy small islands, we'll be better off in the long run. The Paris Hiltons of the world right now are probably a lost cause.
I don't think any form of communism can work - especially not anarchic communism - because there will inevitably be someone willing to beat down all the people around him and take what he wants for himself. Furthermore, other people will follow him simply because he will promise them more than they have.
People like owning things for themselves. No amount of feel-good "everyone owns everything" philosophy will change that.
As for free software, what it has shown us is that Free Software is innovative as long as someone is willing to foot the bill for it.
Consider: Linus Torvalds is paid by the FSF (correct me if I'm wrong) to work on the Linux kernel. He has to eat, you know. He also owns the trademark on "Linux", and monitors its use carefully. Under your "everyone owns everything" mentality, I would be able to write some random crappy piece of Windows software and call it Linux, but that would be wrong, and should be treated as such. (See? Some IP is good.)
Under your philosophy, Free Software in fact could not exist - the people writing it would be doing other things just so they could eat.
I repeat this again - communism in any form cannot work unless it is enforced by violence (or the threat of violence), and even then it is more a dictatorship than communism.
This mysteriously doesn't apply to IP like easily copyable games, music, etc. So the fact that it's easily (free of cost) copyable means that the creators shouldn't be able to charge for it?
Let's assume that we apply supply and demand to video games. PC ones, at that, to make it easier to copy them for free. Infinite supply equals zero cost, under supply and demand, so who foots the several-million-dollars needed to create the game? Well, zero profits means nobody will want to spend the money since they can't make it back again, and pretty soon the only games out there are by people who write them in their spare time (the same place most OSS games come from).
This is why supply and demand don't apply to IP like games and music - it's precisely because they are easily copied, often for free.
You might claim that companies can charge for manuals and physical media and whatnot, and give the game away for free, but you have to know it doesn't work that way. If games were made free, then every single game would be forced to move to a subscription model in order to make money, rather than just the games where a subscription makes sense (e.g. WoW). I, for one, do not welcome our new subscription-based Command & Conquer overlords.
Intellectual property must be treated differently than physical property because it is fundamentally different in nature.
The solution to that isn't to force them to give their money to welfare mothers, it's to teach them to help their fellow human beings.
Using force breeds feelings of injustice, whether or not there is any injustice, and that does nothing but cause problems. If we instead focus on teaching everyone to help other people freely, especially if they have wealth available, then the world would run a lot smoother.
By "teachings" I meant "doctrines available in scripture by which members of the church are bound to live". By "handbook of instructions" I mean "handbook of what to do in various situations based on freely available scriptural doctrines with references provided, but containing no doctrine not available elsewhere."
I thought my meaning was perfectly clear. Don't be pedantic.
It doesn't offend me. I'm not sure where you got that from. If it was from my comments about a woman being able to choose which husband she can be sealed to, then I'm afraid you're being antagonistic for no reason - I made those comments based on my understanding of the principle in light of the lack of scriptural support for the idea. You're free to believe as you choose, of course, and it will not offend me.
I really don't understand why you feel the need to attack me and call me "stubborn before the Lord" and "ignorant". As long as we're insulting each other, I'll just point out that it's not very Christlike to insult someone you know nothing about beyond a few comments on a Slashdot post.
It's not contradictory. D&C says that they did not sin except in those things they did not receive of God. The Book of Mormon says that they had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before God. The logical conclusion - that is, the one that retains consistency - is that some of their wives were given to them by God, but some of them were not - and in that they sinned.
Put another way, assume God gives David two wives. David then says "I have two wives, I should have another!" and goes and finds another girl to marry. God did not give him wife three, and in that he has sinned.
The LDS Church is "trivially" not Christian? You've ignored my obvious and trivial proof that it is Christian.
According to the dictionary, the LDS Church is Christian. I believe in the same Jesus Christ that the New Testament testifies of - just because the Catholic Church disagrees doesn't mean that I'm not Christian.
The various Protestant churches disagree on many major doctrinal issues - including whether or not Christ was resurrected, a key point of the New Testament - and yet nobody ventures to call them not Christian. They are Christian simply because they worship a being called "Jesus Christ". Most of them can't even agree on the nature of Christ (does he have a body? Is he the same being as God?) - so they can't all be worshiping the same concept - but they're still Christian. The LDS Church is no different in that regard.
It is obvious by looking at the state of Christianity today that there is no uniformity among Christian sects about which doctrines are true and which are not - that's the whole reason Martin Luther (for example) split from the Catholic Church.
In other words, the "fundamental points of christian dogma and teachings" you refer to are anything but concrete. They vary in large amounts between the Catholic Church and various Protestant sects. Go ahead; pick a church and say "theirs are the actual, fundamental doctrines of the New Testament." If you do that, then every other Christian sect becomes not Christian.
It is perfectly valid to hold to another, separate interpretation of the New Testament and other scriptures and still be called "Christian".
In reference to Islam, Islam's conception of Jesus is not even close to the LDS Church's conception of Jesus. To Islam, Jesus was simply a holy man, as was Moses, but to Islam, Jesus had no divine attributes.
To the LDS Church, Jesus Christ was and is the literal Son of God, the Savior of mankind, and only through Jesus Christ can man return to heaven.
As a member of the LDS Church, I believe in Christ - the fact that my concept of who Christ is is different than the Catholic concept of who Christ is does not mean I am not Christian. I am Christian, and I object to any who say I am not.
actually I meant secretive from people not of the Mormon church, as to my knowledge it is forbidden for people not of the Mormon faith to enter there "holy places". That's great, but my above post did address that issue, albeit indirectly. Non-members obviously do not have the foundation of basic doctrines necessary to understand the more difficult doctrines, and so by the same "don't cast pearls before swine" principle I explained above, we do not discuss more difficult doctrines with people who are not members of the church.
Any non-members are welcome to visit any LDS meetinghouse on any Sunday (when meetings are held) and attend meetings with us. What you mean by "holy places" is the temples - but not even all members are permitted to go into the temples. Only members who are living by the standards that God has set forth (chastity, honesty, bodily care, etc) are permitted to enter - because they are the ones who have prepared themselves for it.
Interesting perspective, however if this were true you would think God would have given revisions during the medieval era and so on instead of waiting 1800 years for the next one The New Testament prophesies of an "apostasy" - a loss of the gospel, or parts of it, from the earth - and the LDS Church teaches that the apostasy started with the deaths of the apostles of Christ's time and ended with the calling of Joseph Smith as Prophet to restore the gospel in its fullness to the earth. Had there been apostles and prophets on the earth in the intervening 1800 years (during the medieval era), God would have continued giving revelation to them and they would have continued writing scripture.
Note that whenever there has been a prophet on the earth, his words have been recorded; this has been true from the days of Adam until the days of Christ (or so the scriptures indicate).
The church hasn't copyrighted any of its teachings. It copyrighted a handbook of instructions for use by leaders of the church in running the church - the handbook backs up its instructions by giving scriptural references and/or comments by prophets, both of which are freely available online from the Church. The handbook is simply a compilation of instructions and policies useful for leaders of the church in performing their duties.
I'll say it again: the Church Handbook of Instructions does not teach any doctrines that are not available elsewhere in freely available scriptures. It does, however, deal with specific situations that are not mentioned directly in the scriptures, but even there scriptures are provided as a basis for why certain policies are followed.
I really fail to see what you're getting at with these quotes. You have not shown that I misunderstand "the order of the eternal priesthood" nor have you shown where I asserted that God is a respecter of persons. (God judging a person individually according to his or her circumstances is not the same as God being a respecter of persons.)
This page deals extensively with this issue you present here. Short answer: In 1826 Joseph Smith was tried, then acquitted, but anti-Mormons have had a field day with this supposed court document.
I quote:
This line of attack is based upon the persistent work of Rev. Wesley P. Walters, a professional anti-Mormon, who published a legal document from 1826 that supposedly shows that Joseph was convicted of glass looking.
When Walters found the relevant documents among historical records in a county office, he dishonestly removed the evidence from its lawful custodians without their permission [...] he may have essentially stolen the documents that he found and took them--or a subset of them--to Yale University. The lawful custodians of the documents did not get them back for three months, and had to apply legal pressure to induce the return. The county authorities whose documents had been illegally removed only learned of the theft because Mr. Walters published at least some of them. There was no written description of the documents before he removed them, and no witnesses who could describe what he found to compare it what he returned. Thus, the possibility exists that the documents have been tampered with, or that important pieces of evidence were removed or destroyed, leaving only what might be construed as damaging. Would you claim that illegally obtained and likely altered documents in the possession of an acknowledged anti-Mormon presented with no other evidence constitutes evidence admissible in a court of law? Note that judges virtually always exclude from evidence items obtained without warrants, items obtained illegally, and so forth.
Patent laws have no provision regarding precedent either - if I choose not to enforce patent A, it does not mean I have relinquished my rights to patent B. However, precedent can make it more difficult to enforce other things later.
It would be. Nobody is doing that here, so I'm not sure why you're implying this is happening. I didn't mean to imply that it is happening, only that by not enforcing copyright, it could set a precedent which might lead to it happening, and that such a thing would be a Very Bad Thing(tm).
Why would God change his mind so drastically about so many things within the book of Mormon that he specifically said to the contrary in the previous TWO volumes of scriptures, you'd have though he would have made up his mind by the second one. Commandments are given by God that are specific to the times and needs of the people with whom he communicates; for example, there was no need for God to advise the Jews to abstain from using heroin or cocaine, since such things were unheard of; however if God were to list things to be avoided today, I have no doubt that such drugs would be on that list.
On the other hand, the basic principles behind the commandments given by God were and are the same. For example, polygamy - the scriptures make clear that polygamy is only permitted when God explicitly authorizes it (Abraham had multiple wives, as did Jacob; the Book of Mormon specifically teaches this principle).
Regarding "being extremely secretive"... The scriptures, including the New Testament, instruct us not to "cast pearls before swine". That is, people should be taught the gospel line upon line, precept upon precept, just like anything else - we learn addition before we learn algebra, we learn algebra before we learn calculus, we learn calculus before we learn linear algebra, and so on. In the same way, God's teachings are best learned and understood starting with the basics. The best way to make sure this happens is to not share more difficult doctrines with those who do not understand the basic ones. Some things are kept to a small group of people, but only because the larger group does not yet possess enough understanding for the more difficult doctrines. (Think of trying to teach calculus to a child who barely knows how to add.) Any who seek to know these things may learn them, by following the prescribed steps (which are basically to learn and believe the basics first).
Regarding "becoming a god" - this is a popular LDS belief that is not explicitly stated in scripture. It is, however, a common interpretation of various scriptures (including some in the New Testament) which teach that we may become "like Christ" or "like God" if we are righteous; the interpretation of these scriptures is left to us. Furthermore, various Church leaders (including Brigham Young and, if memory serves, Joseph Smith) taught this doctrine. In any case I personally believe this is one of those doctrines that falls under the "pearls before swine" category, and should be treated as such.
As I and others have repeatedly stated elsewhere, it's about precedent. If the church does not enforce its copyright on this manual, then it sets a precedent of not enforcing its copyrights - then others will try to use other Church-owned copyrights against the church (anyone who does this likely does it to defame or otherwise damage the Church) such as the Church's logo or name. The Church does not want people going around claiming to be missionaries from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaching things the Church does not believe.
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.)
You forgot to add that men cannot go to the highest degree of heaven without being married to an LDS woman. Thanks for trying to make the church look bad though. It was a valiant effort.
It's completely mutual. Everyone must be married to attain the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom.
I'm surprised you haven't noticed already. I am indeed a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I feel perfectly justified in speaking for my church on this issue.
Slashdot Mirror
That only proves we haven't solved it yet :P The failure to solve a problem before now does not mean the solution is unreachable.
Well put.
In addition to being interested in the truth, I am interested in helping other people, which you seem very bad at doing. You are just recycling FUD and stating completely baseless opinions. Please point out what I posted that was "FUD" and "completely baseless opinions". You clearly don't know anything about the history of communism, anarchism, or free software; and your grasp on psychology doesn't seem too strong, either. It was strong enough to tell you were trolling, and it's strong enough to know the following:
Communism has never worked, historically, unless it has been enforced by violence or the threat of violence (as I stated elsewhere), making it more a dictatorship than anything. Please point to an example of a truly communist society in history.
Anarchy cannot work, since it is the lack of government, and given the selfish and power-hungry nature of some of the human populace, some would seek to assert their will on others, and we'd be back into Feudalism pretty quickly. If you think I'm wrong, please point to a truly anarchic group of people in history that did not fall into feudalism or something similar.
As for free software... Being mistaken on which foundation pays Torvalds so he can maintain the Linux kernel does not qualify as "knowing nothing about the history of free software". I'd wager I know as much as most
For reference, it is the Linux Foundation (formerly the Open Source Development Labs before they merged with the Free Standards Group) that pays Linus. Exact reference here. Your post was a colossal waste of time. You seem to be saying this based on one assumption: that an erroneous fact invalidates my argument.
The fact remains, Torvalds is paid to maintain the kernel. Other organizations do the same thing. Google pays employees to work on open source software. Mozilla funds the development of Firefox and Thunderbird.
So, my original point is still valid. You may disagree with it, but that does not make it a "colossal waste of time."
Learn to interact respectfully with society. You obviously need it.
Source code is a creation as surely as a painting is a creation, and should be protected as such. Surely you do not argue that everyone who buys a duplicate of a painting becomes a part owner of the original painting?
That said, I don't think it should be possible to extend copyrights or patents indefinitely; instead they should last some fixed number of years (possibly a different number depending on what type of product it is)... long enough for the original creator to profit from it, if they care to, but not long enough that the original creator can stop creating new things.
Under that scenario, the copyright on a video game's source code and the associated artwork would end some fixed number of years after the game is released, at which point it would be released to the public.
Would that not serve both purposes?
Just so you know I actually looked, sense 2b of your definition says "to point out usually for amendment". Emphasis mine.
I did not say "tell me whether I'm wrong." I said "correct me if I'm wrong", which clearly implies that the fact I was presenting ("Linus Torvalds is paid by the FSF to maintain the Linux kernel") should be corrected if necessary. The fact that the comment requesting correction was an aside in the middle of the purported fact gives further strength to the implication.
If I am indeed incorrect, and if you know the correction, then saying "You're wrong" without presenting the correction is simply a troll (albeit a successful one).
Of course, if you have no idea whether I'm correct or not, then your comment is a troll anyway.
So, mods, how 'bout it?
You're absolutely right. Of course, we have to start somewhere - and the currently rising generation is as good a place to start as any. Inevitably some small percentage of the currently rising generation will obtain some form of wealth, so if they're taught to assist others with that wealth instead of hoarding it in order to buy small islands, we'll be better off in the long run. The Paris Hiltons of the world right now are probably a lost cause.
I don't think any form of communism can work - especially not anarchic communism - because there will inevitably be someone willing to beat down all the people around him and take what he wants for himself. Furthermore, other people will follow him simply because he will promise them more than they have.
People like owning things for themselves. No amount of feel-good "everyone owns everything" philosophy will change that.
As for free software, what it has shown us is that Free Software is innovative as long as someone is willing to foot the bill for it.
Consider: Linus Torvalds is paid by the FSF (correct me if I'm wrong) to work on the Linux kernel. He has to eat, you know. He also owns the trademark on "Linux", and monitors its use carefully. Under your "everyone owns everything" mentality, I would be able to write some random crappy piece of Windows software and call it Linux, but that would be wrong, and should be treated as such. (See? Some IP is good.)
Under your philosophy, Free Software in fact could not exist - the people writing it would be doing other things just so they could eat.
I repeat this again - communism in any form cannot work unless it is enforced by violence (or the threat of violence), and even then it is more a dictatorship than communism.
Let's assume that we apply supply and demand to video games. PC ones, at that, to make it easier to copy them for free. Infinite supply equals zero cost, under supply and demand, so who foots the several-million-dollars needed to create the game? Well, zero profits means nobody will want to spend the money since they can't make it back again, and pretty soon the only games out there are by people who write them in their spare time (the same place most OSS games come from).
This is why supply and demand don't apply to IP like games and music - it's precisely because they are easily copied, often for free.
You might claim that companies can charge for manuals and physical media and whatnot, and give the game away for free, but you have to know it doesn't work that way. If games were made free, then every single game would be forced to move to a subscription model in order to make money, rather than just the games where a subscription makes sense (e.g. WoW). I, for one, do not welcome our new subscription-based Command & Conquer overlords.
Intellectual property must be treated differently than physical property because it is fundamentally different in nature.
The solution to that isn't to force them to give their money to welfare mothers, it's to teach them to help their fellow human beings.
Using force breeds feelings of injustice, whether or not there is any injustice, and that does nothing but cause problems. If we instead focus on teaching everyone to help other people freely, especially if they have wealth available, then the world would run a lot smoother.
By "teachings" I meant "doctrines available in scripture by which members of the church are bound to live". By "handbook of instructions" I mean "handbook of what to do in various situations based on freely available scriptural doctrines with references provided, but containing no doctrine not available elsewhere."
I thought my meaning was perfectly clear. Don't be pedantic.
It doesn't offend me. I'm not sure where you got that from. If it was from my comments about a woman being able to choose which husband she can be sealed to, then I'm afraid you're being antagonistic for no reason - I made those comments based on my understanding of the principle in light of the lack of scriptural support for the idea. You're free to believe as you choose, of course, and it will not offend me.
I really don't understand why you feel the need to attack me and call me "stubborn before the Lord" and "ignorant". As long as we're insulting each other, I'll just point out that it's not very Christlike to insult someone you know nothing about beyond a few comments on a Slashdot post.
He did send one, He just waited longer than you think He should have :P
It's not contradictory. D&C says that they did not sin except in those things they did not receive of God. The Book of Mormon says that they had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before God. The logical conclusion - that is, the one that retains consistency - is that some of their wives were given to them by God, but some of them were not - and in that they sinned.
Put another way, assume God gives David two wives. David then says "I have two wives, I should have another!" and goes and finds another girl to marry. God did not give him wife three, and in that he has sinned.
The LDS Church is "trivially" not Christian? You've ignored my obvious and trivial proof that it is Christian.
According to the dictionary, the LDS Church is Christian. I believe in the same Jesus Christ that the New Testament testifies of - just because the Catholic Church disagrees doesn't mean that I'm not Christian.
The various Protestant churches disagree on many major doctrinal issues - including whether or not Christ was resurrected, a key point of the New Testament - and yet nobody ventures to call them not Christian. They are Christian simply because they worship a being called "Jesus Christ". Most of them can't even agree on the nature of Christ (does he have a body? Is he the same being as God?) - so they can't all be worshiping the same concept - but they're still Christian. The LDS Church is no different in that regard.
It is obvious by looking at the state of Christianity today that there is no uniformity among Christian sects about which doctrines are true and which are not - that's the whole reason Martin Luther (for example) split from the Catholic Church.
In other words, the "fundamental points of christian dogma and teachings" you refer to are anything but concrete. They vary in large amounts between the Catholic Church and various Protestant sects. Go ahead; pick a church and say "theirs are the actual, fundamental doctrines of the New Testament." If you do that, then every other Christian sect becomes not Christian.
It is perfectly valid to hold to another, separate interpretation of the New Testament and other scriptures and still be called "Christian".
In reference to Islam, Islam's conception of Jesus is not even close to the LDS Church's conception of Jesus. To Islam, Jesus was simply a holy man, as was Moses, but to Islam, Jesus had no divine attributes.
To the LDS Church, Jesus Christ was and is the literal Son of God, the Savior of mankind, and only through Jesus Christ can man return to heaven.
As a member of the LDS Church, I believe in Christ - the fact that my concept of who Christ is is different than the Catholic concept of who Christ is does not mean I am not Christian. I am Christian, and I object to any who say I am not.
Any non-members are welcome to visit any LDS meetinghouse on any Sunday (when meetings are held) and attend meetings with us. What you mean by "holy places" is the temples - but not even all members are permitted to go into the temples. Only members who are living by the standards that God has set forth (chastity, honesty, bodily care, etc) are permitted to enter - because they are the ones who have prepared themselves for it. Interesting perspective, however if this were true you would think God would have given revisions during the medieval era and so on instead of waiting 1800 years for the next one The New Testament prophesies of an "apostasy" - a loss of the gospel, or parts of it, from the earth - and the LDS Church teaches that the apostasy started with the deaths of the apostles of Christ's time and ended with the calling of Joseph Smith as Prophet to restore the gospel in its fullness to the earth. Had there been apostles and prophets on the earth in the intervening 1800 years (during the medieval era), God would have continued giving revelation to them and they would have continued writing scripture.
Note that whenever there has been a prophet on the earth, his words have been recorded; this has been true from the days of Adam until the days of Christ (or so the scriptures indicate).
The church hasn't copyrighted any of its teachings. It copyrighted a handbook of instructions for use by leaders of the church in running the church - the handbook backs up its instructions by giving scriptural references and/or comments by prophets, both of which are freely available online from the Church. The handbook is simply a compilation of instructions and policies useful for leaders of the church in performing their duties.
I'll say it again: the Church Handbook of Instructions does not teach any doctrines that are not available elsewhere in freely available scriptures. It does, however, deal with specific situations that are not mentioned directly in the scriptures, but even there scriptures are provided as a basis for why certain policies are followed.
That's great and all but you're not the person who claimed "Nobody has a right to secrets." (At least, not that I know of.)
I really fail to see what you're getting at with these quotes. You have not shown that I misunderstand "the order of the eternal priesthood" nor have you shown where I asserted that God is a respecter of persons. (God judging a person individually according to his or her circumstances is not the same as God being a respecter of persons.)
I quote: This line of attack is based upon the persistent work of Rev. Wesley P. Walters, a professional anti-Mormon, who published a legal document from 1826 that supposedly shows that Joseph was convicted of glass looking. When Walters found the relevant documents among historical records in a county office, he dishonestly removed the evidence from its lawful custodians without their permission [...] he may have essentially stolen the documents that he found and took them--or a subset of them--to Yale University. The lawful custodians of the documents did not get them back for three months, and had to apply legal pressure to induce the return. The county authorities whose documents had been illegally removed only learned of the theft because Mr. Walters published at least some of them. There was no written description of the documents before he removed them, and no witnesses who could describe what he found to compare it what he returned. Thus, the possibility exists that the documents have been tampered with, or that important pieces of evidence were removed or destroyed, leaving only what might be construed as damaging. Would you claim that illegally obtained and likely altered documents in the possession of an acknowledged anti-Mormon presented with no other evidence constitutes evidence admissible in a court of law? Note that judges virtually always exclude from evidence items obtained without warrants, items obtained illegally, and so forth.
On the other hand, the basic principles behind the commandments given by God were and are the same. For example, polygamy - the scriptures make clear that polygamy is only permitted when God explicitly authorizes it (Abraham had multiple wives, as did Jacob; the Book of Mormon specifically teaches this principle).
Regarding "being extremely secretive"... The scriptures, including the New Testament, instruct us not to "cast pearls before swine". That is, people should be taught the gospel line upon line, precept upon precept, just like anything else - we learn addition before we learn algebra, we learn algebra before we learn calculus, we learn calculus before we learn linear algebra, and so on. In the same way, God's teachings are best learned and understood starting with the basics. The best way to make sure this happens is to not share more difficult doctrines with those who do not understand the basic ones. Some things are kept to a small group of people, but only because the larger group does not yet possess enough understanding for the more difficult doctrines. (Think of trying to teach calculus to a child who barely knows how to add.) Any who seek to know these things may learn them, by following the prescribed steps (which are basically to learn and believe the basics first).
Regarding "becoming a god" - this is a popular LDS belief that is not explicitly stated in scripture. It is, however, a common interpretation of various scriptures (including some in the New Testament) which teach that we may become "like Christ" or "like God" if we are righteous; the interpretation of these scriptures is left to us. Furthermore, various Church leaders (including Brigham Young and, if memory serves, Joseph Smith) taught this doctrine. In any case I personally believe this is one of those doctrines that falls under the "pearls before swine" category, and should be treated as such.
As I and others have repeatedly stated elsewhere, it's about precedent. If the church does not enforce its copyright on this manual, then it sets a precedent of not enforcing its copyrights - then others will try to use other Church-owned copyrights against the church (anyone who does this likely does it to defame or otherwise damage the Church) such as the Church's logo or name. The Church does not want people going around claiming to be missionaries from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaching things the Church does not believe.
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.)
You forgot to add that men cannot go to the highest degree of heaven without being married to an LDS woman. Thanks for trying to make the church look bad though. It was a valiant effort.
It's completely mutual. Everyone must be married to attain the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom.
I'm surprised you haven't noticed already. I am indeed a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I feel perfectly justified in speaking for my church on this issue.